Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-04-01 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on April 1, 2004 at 8:30 a.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ACTION TAKEN LSP 04-14.00: (Satterfield, pp 407) Approved Page 2 FPL 04-05.00: (springwoods, pp 248) Approved Page 4 FPL 04-06.00: (Salem Townhouses, pp 401) Approved Page 28 LSD 04-09.00: (Allied Storage, pp 601) Approved Page 6 LSD 04-11.00: (Hank's Furniture, pp 135) Forwarded Page 8 LSD 04- 1 0.00:(Lindsey Office Building, pp 174) Forwarded Page 30 PPL 04-05.00:(Deerpath Estates Ph. 2, pp 488) Forwarded Page 14 PPL 04-01.00: (Bridgeport Phase 7, pp 360) Forwarded Page 18 ADM 04-13.00: Fire Station #7 Approved Page 27 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Nancy Allen Alan Ostner James Graves STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Dawn Warrick Suzanne Morgan Matt Casey Subdivision Committee April 1, 2004 Page 2 Craig Carnagey Jeremy Pate Renee Thomas Subdivision Committee April 1, 2004 Page 3 LSP 04-14.00: Lot Split (Satterfield, pp 407) was submitted by Buckley Blew on behalf of Greg Satterfield for property located north of North Street and west of Waneetah Avenue. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre, and contains approximately 0.48 acres. The request is to split the property into two tracts of 0.24 acres. Ostner: Good morning, welcome to the Subdivision Committee of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. There are nine items on the agenda today. The ninth item was added, that is the Fire Station administrative item. The first item of business is LSP 04-14.00. Can we have the staff report? Pate: This lot split was submitted by Buckley Blew on behalf of Greg Satterfield for property located north of North Street and west of Waneetah Avenue. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre and contains approximately 0.48 acres. The request is to split the property into two tracts of .24 acres each. Water lines exist on both the east and west sides of the property. Sewer does not exist in this location currently. Therefore, it is required to be extended to serve these tracts. Right of way in the amount of 25' from centerline is required along Waneetah Avenue. Staff is recommending approval of LSP 04-14.00 at the Subdivision Committee level with three conditions. Ostner: Are there any other staff comments? Casey: Condition number one of the approval says that a public sanitary sewer main must be extended. That needs to be designed by a professional engineer and submitted to the Engineering Division for review and also approved by the Department of Health and approved and under construction before the Lot Split can be filed for record. That's all we have. Ostner: If the applicant would come forward, introduce yourselves and tell us about your project. Satterfield: I'm Greg Satterfield and I actually live across the street from the lot and bought the lot a couple of months ago and really don't want to build a house as big as what it would take to cover the entire lot so I thought I would split it and sell half of it to help me recoup my costs. Blew: I'm Buckley Blew I'm with Blew Land Surveying, we did a survey on the lot. Ostner: Is anyone from the public interested in making a comment? I will bring it back to the committee for comments or motions. MOTION: Subdivision Committee April 1, 2004 Page 4 Allen: This looks routine to me so I would like to move for approval of LSP 04- 14.00 subject to the three conditions of approval. That would include the comments that Matt made also about the Department of Health and Engineering. Graves: Second. Ostner: I will concur, thank you. Subdivision Committee April 1, 2004 Page 5 FPL 04-05.00: Final Plat (springwoods, pp 248) was submitted by Jim Ramsey of Ramsey Surveying, Inc. on behalf of Collins Haynes and Legacy LLC for property located southwest of I-540 at Arkansas State Hwy. 112. The property is zoned C-PZD, Commercial Planned Zoning District, and contains approximately 289.26 acres. The request is to approve the final plat of the C-PZD subdivision. Ostner: Our next item of business is FPL 04-05.00 for springwoods. Pate: This Final Plat was submitted on behalf of Collins Haynes and Legacy, LLC. This property is located southwest of I-540, Arkansas State Highway 112. The property is currently zoned C-PZD 03-8.00 springwoods under ordinance 4523 which went through late last year or early this year. The property is 289.26 acres. The applicant is requesting to approve the Final Plat of the C-PZD subdivision to legalize those lots and then he will be bringing those lots further into the development review process. I included quite a bit of information for you in the actual staff report, most of which was also reviewed at the time of Preliminary Plat and PZD approval for this subdivision. There have been covenants submitted, those are in your staff report as well. They have been reviewed by the City Attorney and given the ok for legality of the covenants. The proposed nine lots have been assigned use units with the Planning Commission and City Council's approvals for specific uses that are legally binding to each lot. The Final Plat really just legalizes everything and records the lines on the paper at the county. Of course there will be more detailed comments regarding vehicular circulation, pedestrian circulation and overall development review process for each of these lots as they come back through the development review process. A total of 167 acres of the property is proposed to be developed in residential and commercial uses. The remaining 122 acres, which is Lot 8, is to be used as greenspace, natural area, wetland mitigation and potentially Audubon Society activities. That information is also included in the covenants which you saw earlier in the PZD process. There is right of way being dedicated with this Final Plat along Deane Solomon along Shiloh Drive and Moore Lane. Staff is recommending approval at this level with 15 conditions. Condition number two is quite lengthy. What it refers to is an agreement that is going before the City Council on April 6`11 to realign a sewer line proposed in that area. An easement needs to be dedicated to the city in order to service that line and construct line. That agreement is in the staff report. I've mentioned here that this condition of approval doesn't substitute for the agreement however, it does reference back to the agreement. I believe that it is within 60 days that the easements have to be conveyed back to the city. Each lot in this PZD will be reviewed by a Preliminary Plat or Large Scale Development in accordance with City Code for future development so we will be seeing each of these again. That is probably with the exception of lot 9 which is a transfer station retained by the city. Restrictive Covenants will be filed with the Final Subdivision Committee April 1, 2004 Page 6 Plat. Those do need to have the City of Fayetteville Planning Division stamp of approval along with the Final Plat when it goes to be recorded at the County. If you have any questions I would be happy to answer them. Ostner: Are there any other staff comments? Carnagey: The only additional comment that I have is a note on the final Plat indicating that as each tract comes trough it is subject to review for all tree preservation protection requirements needs to be placed on the Final Plat. Ostner: Could the applicant come forward please? Ramsey: My name is Jim Ramsey, I'm with Ramsey surveying. Hargas: I'm with EGIS Engineering. Ostner: Is there anyone from the public that would like to make a comment on this Final Plat for springwoods? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission for comments, discussion and motions. MOTION: Allen: This seems all in good shape so I will move for approval of FPL 04-05.00 subject to the 15 conditions of approval. I guess you heard the comment about the tree preservation note needing to be on the Final Plat so please include that. Graves: Second. Ostner: Before I concur Mr. Pate mentioned on condition number one there is right of way on Deane Solomon and Moore Avenue and Shiloh? Pate: Shiloh is currently all dedicated. Ostner: I will concur. Subdivision Committee April 1, 2004 Page 7 LSD 04-09.00: Large Scale Development (Allied Storage, pp 601) was submitted by Mel Milholland on behalf of Randy and Shana Salsbury for property located at 85 W. 15`h Street. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial, and contains approximately 14.98 acres. The request is to allow development of an additional 19,200 sq.ft. storage building. Ostner: We will move onto LSD 04-09.00 for Allied Storage. Is the applicant here today? Pate: This is a Large Scale Development submitted by Milholland Company on behalf of Randy and Shana Salsbury. This property is located on 15`" Street and is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial. The property currently contains 14.98 acres. The applicant is submitting a Large Scale Development proposal to expand an existing storage facility, Allied Storage. The request is for a 19,200 sq.11. storage building on the 14.98 acre tract. Because it is over that 10,000 sq.ft. mark it is subject to the Large Scale Development requirements. That is why we are here today. Storage facilities are a use by right in an I-1 zoning district. We have not in the past reviewed industrial type uses for commercial design standards even though the applicant has submitted elevations to look at if you would like to look at those. This use has been here since I believe 1999. A Large Scale Development plan was approved in February, 1999 and also an expansion of the facility in 2001. The City Council also approved a waiver of the Master Street Plan requirements for this site, a lesser dedication of right of way, for 50' as opposed to the full 55'. The street currently is constructed to a four lane section I believe in this location. There is also existing sidewalk, landscaping, building and pavement already in place. That ordinance does still stand with regard to City Council approval. No existing canopy is proposed to be removed at this time. Staff is recommending approval of the Large Scale Development at the Subdivision Committee level subject to six conditions of approval. That's all I have. Ostner: Are there any other staff comments? Good morning, would you like to tell us about your project? Jefcoat: I think Jeremy did an adequate job and will let it stand at that. Ostner: Is there anyone from the public who would like to comment on this project for Allied Storage? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Committee. MOTION: Allen: I will move for approval of LSD 04-09.00 subject to the six conditions of approval. Subdivision Committee April 1, 2004 Page 8 Graves: I will second that. Ostner: I will concur. Subdivision Committee April 1, 2004 Page 9 LSD 04-11.00: Large Scale Development (Hank's Furniture, pp 135) was submitted by Ron Homeyer of Civil Engineering, Inc. on behalf of Hank's Furniture for property located at Lot 3B of Spring Park Place, Phase I (Joyce Blvd just east of Mall Avenue.) The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 2.04 acres. The request is to allow the development of a 39,900 sq.ft. retail store with 58 parking spaces proposed. Ostner: The next item of business is LSD 04-11.00 for Hank's Furniture. If the applicant could come forward. Pate: This is a Large Scale Development for Hank's Furniture. The property is located between McDonald's and the United Bank on Joyce Blvd. Hank's Furniture is a retail furniture store proposed. The property is in the Spring Park Place subdivision fronting onto Joyce Street. The request is to develop a 40,850 sq.ft. retail store with associated parking. Surrounding land use as I mentioned, to the north is a private drive and vacant lot which is quite a bit above in elevation. I went out there yesterday to check the sight distances to see if you could see the rear of the proposed structure to determine if that should meet Commercial Design Standards. It is limited visibility for that from the streets above to the mall. There is quite a bit of limited visibility with regard to the rear of this property. The right of way is being dedicated along Joyce Blvd. to meet principal arterial standards. Tree preservation is waived because there are no existing trees currently that will be looked at on site. A Large Scale application was originally submitted in February but tabled due to inadequate material submittals. The project was again submitted in March and reviewed at the Technical Plat Review Committee March 17`h. Staff's primary concern from correspondence with the applicants have been about Commercial Design Standards. Particularly the square, boxlike structure aspect of the Commercial Design Standards. Based on that finding, staff is recommending that this be forwarded to the full Planning Commission for review with the following items: 1) Planning Commission determination of Commercial Design Standards. Staff does find that the proposed building does meet most of the Commercial Design Standards with regard to the elevations articulations of surfaces, uses of different colors and materials. You will find it is very much like the Hank's on Futrall. In looking at that structure it looks like they are using relatively the same colors and type of construction. All of the walls that are visible have been articulated with columns, pilasters, ornamentation details and things of that nature that we typically request larger retail stores to look at putting on their larger wall surfaces. Of course it is a square, boxlike structure and that is why staff is in support of this waiver request for a square, boxlike structure, due to the fact that most of the Spring Park subdivision has been developed in that manner. The Circuit City, the Best Buy across Joyce Street in that large development there as well. However, we do feel it is appropriate to take it to the Planning Commission and that is what we Subdivision Committee April 1, 2004 Page 10 are recommending. Item number two, the proposed structure should utilize materials and colors to provide unity, compatibility and transition between adjacent and nearby developments. In reviewing some of the previous applications for Large Scale Developments in this area brick was required on the McDonald's there at the corner and that is an element that is common in most of that area. We are recommending that somehow that be utilized in this development as well. Item number three, an assessment in the amount of $72,207 for street improvements along Joyce Blvd. shall be paid to the developer prior to the issuance of a building permit. I will let Matt with our Engineering Division go over that if there are any questions. Of course, item number four is east and west cross access to existing development that is being provided as shown on the site plan by the developer. Ostner: Thank you Jeremy. Do we have any other staff comments? Casey: I will expand a little bit on item three, the assessment for the street and drainage improvements. When the Large Scale Development for the McDonald's came through and the proposed street and drainage improvements for their site were to widen to match the other ones that had been done, the bank and Circuit City and on down to the east, that left a gap in the improvements on this lot. The City Council agreed to cost share with the developer to make the improvements across this lot with the intention of recouping that cost at the time of this development. That's why we are seeing a $72,000 assessment. Ostner: Thank you. Do you all have any presentation that you would like to make or comments that you would like to share? Homeyer: Yes, I have a couple of comments. Jeremy did a fine job, this is the first time I have heard about incorporating brick and I don't know that that is a problem. As you can see from our elevation here, we are using a stucco or dryvit material and we are bringing out columns. I do disagree that we have a boxlike appearance. The thing that doesn't show up in that rendering is the entrance actually comes out 32', where the Hank's sign is projects out 32' from the building and is approximately 27' wide, which really is quite an articulation. Then the columns protrude about 3'. The awnings protrude about 5' out from the building. Of course we have the awning material and those are the colors of dryvit material that we propose to use on the building down there. We do have not really warehousing. This is what we call just a staging area. Anymore the business has changed, we have an existing facility here in the City of Fayetteville that actually has like 12,000 sq.ft. of warehouse. We no longer do that. Quite frankly, the cost of land is pretty prohibitive in this area to use for a warehouse so we warehouse offsite. What we use the staging area for which is the south 1,500 sq.ft. is to bring goods in if a customer should Subdivision Committee April 1, 2004 Page I1 desire to pick it up at that location. They have the alternative to pick it up at our offsite warehouse. That area also includes an employee break area, restrooms and those types of things. I drove the area again last night and one thing that I would also like to comment on is, as Jeremy said, this site is very high at the back and slopes down and we have actually put our building kind of into the hill. At the back of the building I think we're actually, which would be on the north side, we're only about 8' out of the ground with our building there. There is minimal protrusion there. There is an awful lot of landscaping shown along the site which I think will really blend us in well. I would call ourselves a quiet user of this property. There are only about 2 acres or so. The reason I say that is we are just in the process of building a facility in Destin, Florida. One of the things that they analyze also, and you all are very similar city wise in the things that you analyze from a Planning situation. They have a tremendous traffic problem and they measure traffic counts for different sites. If you are heavy traffic user they actually have a moratorium on some streets that you can't exceed a certain traffic count. Because we are a large building but we are a very minimal traffic user so we will be a good addition to that area and a good use for this site in my opinion. We have done traffic counts on our stores on Saturdays and Sundays and on sale weekends we have an average of 25 spots that we require. Other than the grand opening and I don't think anyone can predict what grand opening sizes are. Our average are 20 to 25 spaces during the normal course of business in a normal time. Furniture takes up a lot of space to display but if you have six or eight customers in your store at one time that's a good usage. Our opinion is we are a good user of this site from that standpoint. I am not saying that we are opposed to brick. We could incorporate some of that if that is a requirement. We are aware of the assessment. We knew when we looked at this property that there was an assessment so we are fully aware of that. Ostner: Is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the committee for comments. Allen: Perhaps we should start with the design standards. I can anticipate that there will be quite a bit of discussion about this at the full Planning Commission because it is hard not to consider that this is a large box. A box by any other name is still a box. I drove out there over the weekend and this is a really highly visible site. We expected quite a bit of McDonald's when they came in. I can't know for sure but I anticipate that the Planning Commission will have some concerns about the elevations. I do think that this south elevation is not very visible at all but I think your east and west elevations are problematic. Ostner: I would tend to agree. Especially the west is a little bit lacking when it comes to Commercial Design Standards. Simply because it is so bare. Subdivision Committee April 1, 2004 Page 12 Allen: It is a highly visible area too. Homeyer: The east and the west you are saying? Ostner: Yes. I think that I could let the north go. It sounds like that is fairly hidden. Allen: You would have to be standing up there on the bluff peering down at it to see it. Ostner: Or making a delivery. Homeyer: Like I said too, that north is kind of in the ground so you are not getting the full building affect anyway. Ostner: That's helpful. Homeyer: Even the west side, you have some of that that is in the ground as well on the north end. We felt like we have addressed it with the columns and the diamond patterns in the dryvit yet you are saying that you would like to see more. Are you talking about the introduction of additional materials to kind of break that run up? Allen: I think that would help and Jeremy's comments about the use of brick. I wish there was a way that the roofline could somehow be broken up so that it isn't a box. I'm just trying to prepare you for what I anticipate will happen. Homeyer: That input is what I'm looking for. We have done that on other projects. This one we thought because of the visibility we thought we would keep it straight. We can actually adjust that and break the line on the west and on the east. It starts high and then you step down and you step down. We can do that. We didn't do that because we thought it looked better the other way. There are some alternatives that we can do there to that sidewall. Allen: Sometimes we've suggested, because we don't want to get into the designing business, the use of things like awnings and stuff like that on the other sides too. That might be another suggestion. Graves: I think overall, as far as the shape of the building, although it might be described as boxlike, it probably does match the other buildings that are out there. That is not as big of a concern to me. I do think at the Planning Commission level one of the things will be the east and the west elevations and what breaks it up on the front on the south elevation is the Subdivision Committee April 1, 2004 Page 13 awnings. Part of it is just the color of the awnings, if there was some way to break up the side of the building with some colors like that. Homeyer: We can definitely come back with some alternative solutions. We will introduce them to Jeremy prior to that meeting and has your experience been that we offer two or three different solutions during the Planning Commission? Do they like to pick and choose or should we just come back and say we think this is the one that is most architecturally pleasing and go with that? I'm just asking the question because I've been down that road before about eight years ago. Allen: I don't think that we've ever gotten the option of picking and choosing that I can remember. Ostner: I think it might be best if you all just give it your best shot. I'm sure we would love to pick and choose and that could be all night long. For my comment, I think your south elevation is acceptable. Somehow if that could be a template. Homeyer: There is no problem. I can tell you right now. That's not a problem at all because you just take this same thing and incorporate it into these areas. We can also incorporate some brick panels in there. I think we can break up those sides. I don't think there will be any hesitation at all on our part to do that. We just have to show it in some pictures. Allen: I think too, on the drawing here you can't tell that there is that 32' projection at the front of the building and that really helps. Homeyer: When we come back we will come back with all four sides drawn. That sounds to me like that will answer a lot more of your questions. Allen: I think that will be helpful to the Commission. Ostner: I have a question for staff. Tree preservation is waived because of the zoning? Camagey: There are no trees existing on the site. Ostner: They are not required to replace anything? Camagey: They submitted a waiver form officially representing that so they are not required to present any other materials other than that form. Subdivision Committee April 1, 2004 Page 14 Warrick: It is preservation that is waived because there is nothing to preserve. Landscaping and additional new trees are not waived. That is part of the standard requirements. Homeyer: That is submitted in the landscape plan that I believe you've approved. Carnagey: Yes, they have a very comprehensive landscaping plan for their parking lot. Ostner: Do you all feel like you have enough information? Homeyer: Yes. Ostner: Commissioners? MOTION: Allen: I will move that we forward LSD 04-11.00 onto the full Planning Commission subject to the eight conditions of approval. Graves: I will second that. Ostner: I will concur. Subdivision Committee April 1, 2004 Page 15 PPL 04-05.00: Preliminary Plat (Deerpath Estates Ph. 2, pp 488) was submitted by Project Design Consultants, Inc. on behalf of SCB, LLC for property located east of Crossover Road and north of Deerpath Drive. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre, and contains approximately 9.13 acres. The request is to approve the development of another phase of this subdivision with 16 single-family lots proposed. Ostner: The next item of business is PPL 04-05.00. Would the applicant come forward? Scott: Hi, I'm Art Scott with Project Design Consultants representing the developer. Morgan: The applicant is requesting to create a residential subdivision on 9.13 acres. The property is zoned RSF-4. It is located north of Deerpath Estates Phase I which is located east of Crossover Road and south of the Cliffs Blvd. proposed extension. This residential subdivision will have 16 single family lots and range in size from .41 acres to .68 acres. This item was heard at the Technical Plat Review on February 11, 2004 at which time staff recommended connectivity to the north. Originally there was a cul-de-sac configuration. The applicant did revise the plans to show connectivity to the north. This was reviewed again at Technical Plat on March 17`h. Right of way to be dedicated is 50' along Sky View Lane and along Red Deer Court. Adjacent Master Street Plan streets are Crossover to the west and Cliffs Blvd. to the north. Staff recommends forwarding this Preliminary Plat to the full Planning Commission with eight conditions. The first of which is the Planning Commission's determination of appropriate connectivity to adjoining property. Staff did recommend connectivity to the north and also payment of parks fees in the amount of $8,880 for 16 single family lots. Ostner: Do we have any other staff comments? At this point I will open it up to the public. If you have any comments, go up to the microphone, tell us your name and give us your comments. Mansfield: Good morning, my name is Steve Mansfield and I'm a homeowner in Deerpath Phase I. In general, I think most of us in the Phase I subdivision are very favorably inclined to having this go forward. However, I think we would request that the developer have a meeting with us. We have heard nothing from them about their plans. We are concerned about the homeowners association of Phase I, who is going to be taking care of the entrance and how the costs are going to be shared and that sort of thing. Also, if you could tell me a little bit about the connectivity to the north. Originally there wasn't a road going through. Is it now intended to go through someplace else? Subdivision Committee April 1, 2004 Page 16 Morgan: With the stub out it will be planned for future connectivity to the north to either Cliffs Blvd. extension or Stone Mountain Road. Mansfield: Cliffs Blvd. doesn't go through right now does it? Morgan: No, it is on the Master Street Plan to connect. Mansfield: The developer would only take this street up to where it would intersect sometime. It is basically a dead-end the way that it is now planned? Morgan: Currently yes. If developed happened to the north then it would be extended. Mansfield: We would like to at least talk to the developer about traffic flow and what the expected egress and ingress from Cliff s Blvd., what the plan is there. Right now we have one entrance. It is a relatively low traffic volume street which is very nice for the kids. We want to make sure that stays that way or stays safe. The design standards, right now in Phase I we do have a set of covenants that run with all of our sites and have specific design standards. We want to make sure they are the same or comparable to what we have and we just don't know. Scott: The developer intends to go at those with a minimum standard. Mansfield: I know this meeting is about Phase II so I don't really want to take that discussion away. I believe in the covenants in Phase I as long as the developer owns one of the lots in Phase I, which I believe they now own 2, they are in charge of the Home Owner's Association and control that association. We would like to make sure that those two phases either work together or that there is one overlapping association for both phases. Thank you. Ostner: Is there anyone else from the public who would like to make a comment? I am going to close it off to the public and move it back to the developer. Would you like to make a presentation or do you have anything to say? Scott: I will try to meet with the rest of the neighborhood before the full Planning Commission and address their concerns. I think that the additional homes will be under the same standards as which they have already. It seems like the only possible problem is the connectivity. We can discuss that with them and explain to them what we have discussed with staff. Ostner: I think that would be very helpful. Subdivision Committee April 1, 2004 Page 17 Allen: I do too. I think Mr. Mansfield made an important point and the neighbors are deserving of more understanding of the project. I appreciate that you will meet with them before the Planning Commission meeting. Ostner: One of the conditions deals with the connectivity to the north. Is there any discussion on that point by the committee? Scott: We originally planned a cul-de-sac but instead we extended the street to stub out to the north also with utilities. Ostner: Do you know this land owner? There are no plans pending? Scott: No, not that I'm aware of As you can see, it is a really narrow piece of property that doesn't really lend itself well to future development but if it does we will be ready to have something there for them to tie into. Ostner: I was curious about this road. It says proposed construction not a part. That road is not built apparently. Morgan: This road was approved to be constructed with the Stone Mountain Preliminary Plat. There is existing Cliffs Blvd. here and the Master Street Plan was amended to have the Cliffs Blvd. extension to come up through where the approximate location of the existing private drive on this lot north of the subdivision and to connect into the proposed Stone Mountain Road. Ostner: Is that still up for discussion at the Council level? Warrick: The exhibit that was passed down is actually what the City Council adopted as an amendment to the Master Street Plan resulting from the request for Stone Mountain subdivision. It wasn't exactly the way that the Planning Commission forwarded it but it was similar. You will see between the dots labeled one and two on this exhibit the proposed local street for Stone Mountain subdivision was approved by also the connection to extend Cliffs Blvd. to the east was left on the Master Street Plan and required by the City Council to remain as a loop up to the area where dot number two is located on the exhibit. We believe that an extension of Sky View Lane within this subdivision would reasonably be able to connect to that loop of Cliffs Blvd. that is a collector street on the Master Street Plan. That loop between Crossover and Number two on the exhibit is the only portion of that street that will not be constructed at the end of the development of Stone Mountain subdivision. It would really entail the development that the property immediately north of Phase II of Deerpath in order to make all of these things finally connect the way that they are shown on this amended Master Street Plan. Subdivision Committee April 1, 2004 Page 18 Ostner: Alright. Allen: I did wonder, I drove out to check this one out and Crossover Road has an awful lot of traffic, if staff had any concern that these 16 single family lots would create any significant additional impact that we needed to be concerned about. Warrick: Crossover Road in the area of this development has been improved, it is a four or five lane section from this point, at least south to Hwy. 16. It is developed to the standard of a principal arterial street and the traffic generated by 16 single family residences is somewhere between 150 and 160 vehicle trips per day. That is a really low number when you are looking at the total volume of traffic that can be handled by a street that is configured and developed the way that Crossover Road is. We are not concerned with that. Ostner: One question I have for Engineering is the proposed elbow as the street enters the subdivision it basically has an elbow before it continues on around. Scott: This is actually existing up to this point and then this is what is proposed. It is kind of hard to see. Ostner: Ok. MOTION: Allen: I will move that we forward PPL 04-05.00 with the nine conditions of approval onto the full Planning Commission. Graves: I will second. Ostner: I will concur. That's it, thank you. Subdivision Committee April 1, 2004 Page 19 PPL 04-01.00: Preliminary Plat (Bridgeport Phase 7, pp 360) was submitted by Geoffrey Bates of Keystone Consultants, Inc. on behalf of Arkansas Oaks for property located east of Bridgeport Subdivision Phase III and Freedom Place. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre, and contains approximately 17.4 acres. The request is to approve the development of Phase 7 of this subdivision with 24 single-family lots proposed. Ostner: The next item of business is PPL 04-01.00 for Bridgeport Phase VII. Would the applicant come forward? Morgan: The applicant is requesting to create a residential subdivision on 17.4 acres. It is zoned RSF-4 with 24 single family lots proposed ranging in size from .331 acres to approximately 1.5 acres. The northern portion of the property includes area within the floodway and 100 -year floodplain of Hamestring Creek. The property is located south of Mt. Comfort Road and east of Bridgeport Phase I and III. There are two existing properties within this area and a property line adjustment will need to be recorded in order to create a legal tract of land on which the subdivision is proposed. The item was originally heard at the Subdivision Committee on January 15, 2004 and the proposal was for 8 lots. There was a recommendation for connectivity to the east. Plans were revised to include additional property to the east and south, as you see now, and was resubmitted and heard at Technical Plat on March 17, 2004. Right of way being dedicated is 50' for American Drive as well as New Road. New Bridge Road is a collector on the Master Street Plan and will require 70' of right of way. The existing and constructed New Bridge Road west of the proposed extension was platted prior to the Master Street Plan adoption and is at 50' of right of way. The new portion of New Bridge Road will need to be 70' to comply with those requirements. The applicant is proposing a dead end street of 570' in length. Staff recommends that a street connection south from this intersection of New Bridge Road and New Road in order to provide for future development to the south. This will also allow for a configuration of lots abutting the existing lots that are to the south of New Bridge Road. Staff recommends forwarding this Preliminary Plat to the Planning Commission with a total of 17 conditions. The first being Planning Commission determination of appropriate connectivity to adjoining vacant property. Staff is recommending a street connection to the south. Also, Planning Commission determination of a waiver for a cul-de-sac length of 570'. The maximum allowed by ordinance is 500'. Condition number four, the applicant shall dedicate 70' of right of way for New Bridge Road. Item five, New Bridge Road should be constructed at local street standards. Currently it is shown as a 24' width street. Our standard is 28'. In addition, item number six, dedication of an access easement for a temporary cul-de-sac on American Drive. American Drive extends and we are recommending that there be a temporary cul-de-sac for turn around purposes and emergency vehicles. An additional assessment Subdivision Committee April 1, 2004 Page 20 shall be made for additional street construction of American Drive to be completed with the future eastern street extension. A property line adjustment shall be filed prior to Final Plat approval. Item number 10 is in regard to the removal of the construction office at the time of Final Plat to comply with the conditions of CUP 03-27.00. Those minutes for that item is included in the staff report for further reference. Ostner: Thank you. Are there any other staff comments? Brady: Just that a deed for the trail corridor needs to be submitted by the time of Final Plat. Casey: I'd like to work with the applicant to make sure that the assessment for the portion of the street construction that is not complete is limited just to the curb, gutter and sidewalk. If we can construct that in a way to where everything outside of where the curb should be will be temporary then we can make that assessment just for the sidewalk and the curb and gutter section. That's all I have. Ostner: At this time I will bring it to the applicant. Do you all have a presentation? Bates: Not particularly. I'm Geoff Bates, as Suzanne said, you have seen this before. The last time there was a cul-de-sac right here and all they have done is extend the street like staff asked. The only real question I have is if we stub this out it is going to make a non -conforming. I don't know what you are going to do with that little piece of property right there. Warrick: In looking at that connection to the south I understand that there will be a slight remnant parcel there at the corner. The property owner to the south is not the person listed on your information. That property changed hands back in December and I have been in contact with the owner who proposes in the near future to develop that property as a single family subdivision. My best advise to both this developer as well as the developer to the south, is that the two of you coordinate the best result for that tract of land. It could be a legal lot in either subdivision with the adjustment of a small parcel of land to complete the lot from one side or the other. I think that a lot line adjustment could ensure that that becomes a reasonable lot. The alternative could be that it is just a common greenspace managed by the Property Owner's Association for Bridgeport if that is something that you would want, or if you wish to coordinate the adjustment of that property to the developer to the south it could be an entrance to his development and he could decide how to incorporate that as a greenspace or entrance feature to his development but that would be my suggestion that there be some coordination as to what happens with that piece. The reason that we are suggesting that that connection be made Subdivision Committee April 1, 2004 Page 21 is that it is in a perfect location for there to be a row of lots that backs up to the lots that currently are developed facing High Avenue to the west. If you will look on your vicinity map you can see that High Avenue runs north and south and the lots that are on the east side of that immediately back up to the property that could become an organized row of lots with this street becoming their frontage on the east side. Helmer: My question Dawn would be at what point does that have to be determined? Is it prior to Final Plat? Warrick: It needs to be prior to Final Plat on yours and really prior to Preliminary Plat on the property to the south so that we understand where it is going to go. Helmer: As long as we can go forward with our development because I've made contact with him, just preliminary and we are interested in doing something. I guess if that didn't work out we could make it common greenspace. Warrick: I think staff would be glad to add a recommended condition that should that lot not be incorporated into one of the two subdivisions as a legal lot that it be dedicated as greenspace and managed by the property owner's association. We can include that as a condition in the eventuality that you can't get things worked out. I think that you probably can, it is just a matter of working together. Helmer: We have until Final Plat to make that determination though. Bates: Speaking of Final Plat, the developer wants to phase this. We want to do these 13 lots and Final Plat this and then go ahead and start construction on the south part. Is there anything in particular we need to do? Warrick: You called out your phases on the Preliminary and that is appropriate. I think that it is important that you realize that this Preliminary Plat with both phases shown carries a one year approval so the construction needs to be continuous if you are going past that one year point. It needs to be a project that is ongoing. Ostner: On the issue of phasing Phase VII, is that complicated for it to be two phases? Warrick: It would not be a bad idea to call this Phases VII and Phases VIII, call the northern portion Phase VII and the southern portion Phase VIII. That is what we will expect to see on the Final Plat documents. Subdivision Committee April 1, 2004 Page 22 Ostner: Before we have any other discussion I would like to open it up to the public. Is there anyone here who would like to comment? Please come to the microphone, tell us your name and share your comments. Warren: My name is Bruce Warren, I live at lot 121 on the corner of American and Freedom. I understand that the original concept was for there to be a cul- de-sac on American Drive. I was personally in favor of that. I do live on that road, my property faces that road. My concern is that by making a through street, I assume that this American will eventually connect to New Bridge but I'm not sure if there may be other cul-de-sacs that come off of American. My concern is that at the intersection of American and Freedom there is the little crow's foot and what you can't see on that plat is that there is a large hill. Freedom Place cul-de-sac is actually on a hill and so the sight distance at that particular intersection is not very good. What you can see is if you make this a straight away on American people will come to the intersection of Freedom and they can actually visibly see the intersection where American intersects New Bridge. It looks like a straight shot, even though it is not. I'm afraid that people are going to skip through that stop sign because sight distance is so poor and it is going to create a problem. When it was originally designed as a cul-de-sac and there was going to be a lower traffic volume it wasn't much of an issue but when we have proposed a through street now I'm afraid that there are going to be some issues at that intersection because it was originally laid out to handle a large amount of traffic. The other issues I have are on Freedom Place there is currently a 3,000 sq.ft. minimum for the homes and we don't know what the covenants are requiring for the rest of American. We would like to inquire about that. Those are the concerns that I have that I wanted to voice at this time. Is there a covenant system set up for the new phase. I've seen a lot size but I don't know about the home size. Helmer: I have met with the officials of the Property Owner's Association and the covenants will be comparable to Phase III as far as the architectural construction and the minimum requirements. Warren: That would imply something in the minimum 3,000 sq. ft. range or better? Helmer: Yes. Warren: Ok, I understand that and I would like to hear comments on the through street issue if I could. Ostner: We will certainly comment on that. Is there anyone else from the public? Please come forward. Subdivision Committee April 1, 2004 Page 23 Barnes: Good morning, my name is Jim Barnes. I'm at 2100 Freedom Place. My concern is on the construction trailer. Did you guys grant something on that or what's going to happen with that? Ostner: I believe there is an agreement to remove it. Barnes: Ok, thanks. Warrick: The construction trailer is recommended, and actually required to be removed by the time that the Final Plat is approved for Phase VII. Ostner: Are there any other comments from the public? I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Committee. Talking about the potential traffic hazard, is there any light we can share on that with the public about how that might be handled? Warrick: Much of that will likely depend on how the property to the east develops. There is a ridge line because this is bordering the creek on the north and American Drive, as it continues to the east, already starts to curve going to the south and it is following some of that topography. The way that it is going to be developed even further to the east is not going to be known until we see some preliminary layouts and proposals for property development to the east. At this point in time we are talking about adding 13 lots to it. The 50' street right of way is a local street and it is our standard street construction. There is a very strange intersection that occurred when Phase III was added to Bridgeport. That actually can work as a traffic calming situation because you don't have a direct four way intersection and you don't have immediate access to New Bridge Drive without taking that small jog. I can also see how that can be problematic because it is tricky and people aren't used to intersections like that. As far as when and if it is going to intersect with New Bridge Road, that is going to depend on the development to the east. The reason that we are looking at this street connecting to the east is because of the city's policy for connectivity between developments. We want to ensure that those people who are currently in Bridgeport have an opportunity to access this development and that these new owners within this Phase and properties further to the east, also have an ability to access the existing streets and infrastructure within New Bridge. It is not only for the individuals living within those areas, it is for emergency services, it is for trash pick up, it is for your postmen and for ease of transport throughout the various subdivisions. We will need to understand better when we get to the next development how to best get those connections to work appropriately. We believe that that connection to the east is a reasonable connection and we felt that it was appropriate to encourage that. When the Subdivision Committee saw this previously with the cul-de-sac on American Drive one of the comments was that we needed to look at a connection. This was the Subdivision Committee April 1, 2004 Page 24 solution that the developer came up with and staff is supportive of this solution because we feel that it I a reasonable connection and it provides that connectivity to the east that we were looking for and that the Planning Commission or Subdivision Committee felt was appropriate. Allen: Do we need to talk about item number two, the Planning Commission determination of the waiver for the cul-de-sac. Warrick: I would suggest that if the stub out is made to the south that eliminates this necessary cul-de-sac length waiver because it will no longer be a dead end street. Ostner: What about going north? Warrick: Is the dimension from the centerline of New Bridge to the cul-de-sac? I will retract my comment, we may need the waiver anyway. Ostner: What options are there to adhere to the 500' cul-de-sac limit? This one coming up from New Bridge Road. Bates: We could probably slide it back a little. Helmer: Then we get back to making those big lots that we were trying to cut down on. Bates: There is a big power line easement too so that kind of squeezes it. Warrick: One of the things that we were trying to avoid is, if you will remember, in the previous plat we had lots in the area of 17 and 18 that were very different in size and nature than the rest of the lots in the subdivision. The cul-de-sac, the way that it has been proposed, has enabled the developer to provide more consistent lot sizes. Staff is not opposed to the waiver and it is something that we do consider in circumstances where it is merited. Ostner: Ok. Is this the utility easement? Bates: It is a transmission line. Allen: What about condition number five? New Road is going to be 24' now instead of 28'? Ostner: Is this cul-de-sac New Road? Bates: Can it not be 24'? It is a cul-de-sac and local street. Subdivision Committee April 1, 2004 Page 25 Casey: There are only 9 lots on it. We usually look at upsizing to 28' when we get in the range of 30 or so lots. Warrick: I believe it is shown to have a 50' right of way and a 24' street. It is usually 40' and a 24' or 50' and a 28' so we didn't really understand what you were wanting to do with that. Bates: We just left the larger right of way for the utilities to get through there and the sewer. Warrick: Ok. Ostner: Just as a single vote I would be in favor of a 24' street. It doesn't seem to be much traffic at all. Allen: I don't think there is the need. Warrick: With the larger right of way would you be amenable to constructing a sidewalk on both sides whereas the 24' street section only requires it on one side? Bates: We are showing it on both sides. Warrick: I guess you would be agreeable to that, thanks. Ostner: Where is this property line adjustment for condition number eight? Warrick: It would be immediately south of Lot 14. Bates: The property line actually comes all the way up here along Mt. Comfort Road as part of this parcel. Everything north of the creek. Helmer: This property was originally purchased in two tracts split by this power line but we are developing it in two tracts split by the creek so we need to make those parcels match up with what we are developing. Ostner: Are you amenable to the conditions as they stand? Helmer: We will do the 24' street on New Road with the existing 50' right of way. I think we are amenable, I just want to make sure I'm understanding what I'm agreeing to. I guess I have a question regarding streetlights. I read something about some type of lighting ordinance that is being proposed. Does that affect our subdivision? Warrick: The Outdoor Lighting Ordinance has been heard by the Planning Commission and is being forwarded to the City Council. It has not been Subdivision Committee April 1, 2004 Page 26 adopted yet. It will affect the style of lights that are installed for streetlights. The utility companies are aware of that and are agreeable to start implementing that ordinance when it is adopted and they have stated that they can obtain the type of lighting structures which are full cut off, referred to as shoebox lights, that will start being installed in new developments and along new streets in developments after the adoption of that ordinance. I don't believe that it will affect these phases but it could, depending on when that ordinance is adopted by council. Helmer: The reason for my question is as you might remember, we haven't been using the utility company's streetlights. We have been using an ornamental post light in Bridgeport. It takes a little bit of time to get those and I need to order them if we are going to continue to use them but I don't want to buy them and then put them out on the farm. Warrick: The requirement will be what is on the books right now is the only thing that we can enforce until that ordinance is adopted. Those regulations that are in force at the time that your Preliminary Plat is approved are the regulations that you must develop under. Warrick: If the Preliminary is approved before the Council approves then they would have the ability to continue installing the lights that are existing in their development unless the Planning Commission were to place a different condition on their Preliminary Plat. Helmer: Then yes, I do agree. Allen: I move that we forward PPL 04-01.00 to the full Planning Commission subject to the conditions. Graves: Second. Ostner: I will concur. Subdivision Committee April 1, 2004 Page 27 ADM 04-13.00: Major Modification to Large Scale Development Fire Station #7. Ostner: The next item on the agenda is ADM 04-13.00 for Fire Station #7. Is the applicant here? Pate: We are the applicant. This item addresses a major modification to a Large Scale Development for Fire Station #7 which was recently approved. Staff is recommending in favor of approving this modification. Basically, there are two changes to the site plan. First is the offsite access easement to the south. This is the originally approved site plan if you'd like to compare. To the south there was originally an access easement drive to be constructed on Mr. John Knock's property. That was a condition of approval prior to building permit that that access easement be granted, which has been in the works. However, due to some changes, the parking and drive have been reconfigured to decrease the amount of impervious surface. The amount of parking that was previously approved is not needed. Basically, all that you see to the rear of that fire station is no longer needed, the through drive as well as the access there. The 8 Yz" x 11" is what is being proposed. We still meet all ordinance requirements for access and adequate parking for the proposed facility with the modifications as shown. Staff is recommending approval of those modifications. Ostner: Nothing else has changed besides the rear concrete? Pate: Right. Some of the parking spaces were added to the front. I believe they have 8 total, there were only four on the original version so some of them were made up up front but it makes up for a lot of costs and access problems getting access to the rear of the site. Ostner: Extending this front parking to the south doesn't affect any setbacks or parking lot codes? Pate: No. Ostner: Is there anyone from the public who would like to comment on this item? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Committee. Allen: I will move for approval of ADM 04-13.00. Graves: Second. Ostner: I will concur. Subdivision Committee April 1, 2004 Page 28 FPL 04-06.00: Final Plat (Salem Townhouses, pp 401) was submitted by Engineering Services, Inc. on behalf of C & K Properties for property located north of Wedington Drive along the west side of Salem Road. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office, and C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, and contains approximately 8.30 acres. The request is to approve the final plat of this subdivision. Ostner: Next is Salem Townhouses. Pate: As you may remember, a Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use for this site was approved by the Planning Commission on February 23, 2004. The current request is to approve the Final Plat of the two lot subdivision, lot one being 4.77 acres and Residential Office zoning district and lot two is 3.55 acres which is an existing C-1, Neighborhood Commercial zoning district. As you may remember, lot one was also the subject for a Conditional Use request for single family which was approved with conditions. Those conditions remain in affect. This request basically is to plat these two lots to record those and then we will most likely anticipate seeing a development proposal somewhere in the near future. There is right of way being dedicated with this Final Plat along Hwy. 16, Wedington Drive, as well as Salem Road. Staff is recommending approval of the Final Plat with nine conditions. Three and four address the conditions of the Conditional Use placed on lot 1 with the access easement. That was a long meeting but we went through the minutes and rehashed that and figured out what the exact motion was and came up with conditions three and four, that being a 40' access easement is provided along the north and west sides of the existing bank tract there. Item three reads "If lot 1, the 4.77 acre tract, should be developed first vehicular and pedestrian access shall be provided by way of a 24' wide private street constructed to city standards within a 40' access easements. Sidewalks shall be provided per the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and this street shall be constructed from the existing curb cut on Salem Road to the property line of Lot 2 to provide for future access of Lot 2." In reverse, if Lot 2 develops first then the requirement would be to build that street connecting Wedington Drive to Salem Road. That is what we got out of the conditions of approval for the Preliminary Plat when it originally came through. All other conditions of approval remain applicable and staff is recommending approval at this level. Ostner: Thank you. At this time I will call on the public. Is there anyone from the public who would like to comment on this? Seeing no one left, I will bring it back to the Committee. I believe I was absent for this debate. You two might remember it better. Graves: This is what I believe we discussed that night for a long time. Mainly what we talked about that night was access and this definitely looks Subdivision Committee April 1, 2004 Page 29 consistent with what I remember talking about that night. I will move that we approve FPL 04-06.00 subject to the conditions of approval as stated. Allen: I will second. Ostner: I will concur. Thank you very much. Subdivision Committee April 1, 2004 Page 30 LSD 04-10.00: Large Scale Development (Lindsey Office Building, pp 174) was submitted by Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc. on behalf of Lindsey Management Company for property located on the northeast corner of Joyce Blvd. and Stearns Street. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 5.86 acres. The request is to allow development of an 82,420 sq.ft. office building with 275 parking spaces proposed. Ostner: Our last item is LSD 04-10.00 for the Lindsey Office Building. Can we have the staff report please? Pate: Yes Sir. This item is a Large Scale Development for the Lindsey Office Building off of the northeast corner of Joyce Blvd. and Stearns Street with the exception of the existing bank there. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 5.86 acres. The request is to allow development of a 82,420 sq.ft. office building with 275 parking spaces proposed. This Large Scale Development was approved by the Planning Commission in July, 2001 with similar waivers and conditions of approval as noted in this staff report. It did lapse, the time frame lapsed without a request for an extension. Therefore, it was required to come back through the Large Scale Development process. That is where we are today. There are a few changes with regard to our ordinance requirements and recommendations from that at that time of approval. Currently the street improvements along Stearns Street will be a 14' section with curb, gutter, storm drain and 6' sidewalks. I believe the last time it came through it was a full 28' section. I believe part of that has been constructed or will be constructed. Additionally, a 10' sidewalk to be installed along Joyce Blvd. has been recommended by staff to match the existing 10' sidewalk that is being constructed all along Joyce Blvd. in this location. Existing and preserved tree canopy is at 14.6%. Therefore, no mitigation is required. Staff is recommending this Large Scale Development be forwarded to the full Planning Commission. There are a number of existing conditions. A few of those I will go over for you. Planning Commission determination of Commercial Design Standards. Staff finds that the proposal meets the criteria for commercial structures within our Commercial Design Standards. Item two, Planning Commission determination of a variance request for the 100' building setback from the water surface in the pond area. That waiver was approved at the 2001 Planning Commission meeting as well and we are in support of that variance as well at this time. The street improvements I mentioned on item number three. Item four, Planning Commission determination of an appropriate assessment for a traffic signal to be installed at the intersection of Joyce Blvd. and Vantage Drive. I will let Matt Casey, our Staff Engineer, address that in a little more depth. A few things that came through with the Landscape Administrator's comments are shown with items 6, 7 and 8. 1 will let Craig Carnagey go over those. Subdivision Committee April 1, 2004 Page 31 Ostner: Thank you. Are there other staff comments? Carnagey: A few conditions of approval that I've placed on this project would be to see a retaining wall on the eastern edge of this property in order to better protect the trees that are being proposed for preservation. Removal or relocation of that electrical transformer that is encroaching on some trees as well is placement of that in a location that better protects those trees and that storm drain should be relocated as well, possibly to move to the northwest a little bit to get out of those tree roots as well. That is the storm drain in the northeast corner of the property near the proposed trash dumpster there. If you could shift that a little bit to get out of those root zones. Kelso: We can probably shift it to the other corner if we need to, we can drain the water around there and that way it gets it to that point. There was a reason why it was done there the last time but I don't remember. Carnagey: Even if it could just be shifted 10' to the north based on your current inventory it would get it away from some of the root zones of these larger trees. Kelso: I see what you are saying. There is a reason why it was put back there and I think there was some long discussions with the power company but it has been a couple of years. Camagey: My only other comments would be on interior design standards for tree lawns and islands. Currently the number of spaces don't correspond to our required numbers. On that tree lawn I think you have a run of almost 20 spaces and our requirement is for 10, so we may want to add some islands in here. I would also just request to take a look throughout the parking lot to make sure those spaces meet up with our requirements. There are a couple of areas where you have a few extra. You may need to adjust some islands to make sure that we don't go over our required number of spaces. Then a detailed landscape plan will need to be submitted prior to building permit approval. Casey: As Jeremy stated, we are looking at an offsite assessment for the traffic light at Vantage and Joyce and I don't have any quantities right now but we are working on that and will have that at the time of the Planning Commission meeting. One other item I'd like to mention is there was a Plat Review comment that was not changed. That was to show the extension of the box culvert on the west side of the property to accommodate the construction of the 10' sidewalk to the property line. That's all I have. Subdivision Committee April 1, 2004 Page 32 Ostner: Thank you. At this time I will bring it to the applicant. Do you all have a presentation or any comments that you would like to make? Kelso: That we concur with the requirements and it is basically the same project that was approved two years ago. Ostner: At this point I will open it up to the public. Is there anyone here who would like to comment on this project? Seeing no comment, I will bring it back to the committee for comments, questions and motions. Allen: I have a question for staff regarding the process when a project isn't completed, does activity and construction stop at that time? Warrick: If activity and construction has been initiated then the project is underway if it has been permitted. There is an ordinance that was approved sun setting the approvals on projects and providing a deadline on newly initiated projects. This was adopted as a part of the updated Unified Development Code and went into place last summer. It basically establishes an expiration for plans and permits. Previously we had an expiration mandatory for Preliminary Plats but we were generating staff comments and Planning Commission enforced expirations on Large Scales, Conditional Uses and other types of items. We didn't have an ordinance that uniformly provided one specific time frame. What this did for us was it provided a one year time limit and it itemizes tasks that must be completed within that period of time to include one year from the date of approval the following items must be accomplished: For any renovation or new construction: Must receive a building permit. For Lot Splits: Recorded deed or survey at the Circuit Clerk's office stamped for recordation by the City Planning Division. Receive a Certificate of Zoning Compliance. Receive all permits and approvals required by the city, state and federal regulations to start construction of the development project. Then there is a provision for extensions. Extensions must be requested prior to the expiration of the approval for the original project. They can be granted for one calendar year and they must be granted by the Planning Commission. For anything else there is a one year time frame. For projects that meet the requirements to be underway within that one year there is a three year time limit on getting it finished and then there is some more information about how that works. Basically, we need the projects to be initiated within one calendar year and meet the requirements of that first section whereby they have received all of their necessary permits and approvals to get started and then they must complete them within three years. Allen: I wondered because when I went out to look at the project I had a hard time getting there because there were a lot of work vehicles out there. I just wanted to make sure that was appropriate. Subdivision Committee April 1, 2004 Page 33 Warrick: That is related to a different development project to the Stearns Street construction. Kelso: Stearns Street construction is part of the Stearns Street apartments. Allen: Ok, that is what I was running into. That's why I wanted the clarification. Ostner: Is this on the west side of the post office? Kelso: Yes. Allen: And it is six stories tall as I recall, is that correct? Fugitt: Right. The elevation has changed a little bit from what you have for this revised elevation here. It is basically the same. We've just been playing around a little bit with the brick detailing and how that brick operates on the glazing there and we are still playing with it a little bit. It is never done until it is done. Allen: The blue I presume is glass and not reflective? Fugitt: It is a tinted material and it is quite reflective but it kind of has a blue tint to it. I think this drawing is really representative of how we hope it is going to turn out. Allen: I was thinking about some of those glass buildings that you see that you are blinded by when the light hits it. Fugitt: It is not a mirror finish. Allen: It is reflective but it is not going to be like one of those copper buildings where you can't see the road for the glass. Ostner: Our first condition is consideration for Commercial Design Standards. What do you all think? Allen: I think that Mr. Fugitt is gifted at making a box not look like a box. I think it looks nice. Ostner: I think so too. Allen: I meant that as one person. I can only speak for one and I'm sure there will be some debate. We are very diverse and we have some new people and I have no idea how they will fit into the mix but personally I think it is aesthetically pleasing. Subdivision Committee April 1, 2004 Page 34 Ostner: I think it is fine. Fugitt: The six story tower is obviously a box type structure for economy use but what we tried to do with the brick and pre -cast fagade is break that up and give it a tower affect, also with the use of glass and choosing this particular glass we hope that glass box so to speak will blend more with the sky and, while it won't become transparent, hopefully it will move in that direction. Ostner: I like the false gable projecting above the top of the structure. I like seeing a roof, not just a vanishing flat roof, that helps a lot. The lower structures to me help it not be a box. Fugitt: The roof is to hide the mechanical equipment. We have three big chiller units there for the tower so that hides those. Then the air conditioner units for the wings are under that metal roof so you see that large vent there in the little gables are to provide make up air and combustion air for the HVAC units that service the wings. We didn't want to be in the tower looking down on all of that mechanical equipment either. With the site coverage that we have it was difficult so that is all under the roof there. This is the same brick that was used on the Town Center on the square. That is a sample of the pre -cast concrete that you see over the arches and the white detailing there and this is the metal roof color. Ostner: What about this second condition of the 100' setback from the water surface elevation? Kelso: I think really the only pond that is close would be this one. The finished floor is well above the flood elevation. It is just a little bitty pond and it is an office building so you are not going to have kids around there. That is for requirements for detention. Fugitt: We will put fountains in that, it will be an active pond. It won't be a dry, stagnant situation there. Ostner: On that point are these others going to be active ponds also? Kelso: Yes, that will give a nice water feature in front of the building to make it look nice. Ostner: Condition number three for street improvements. Kelso: To be honest with you, we are doing those street improvements with Stearns Street anyway. Subdivision Committee April 1, 2004 Page 35 Ostner: This condition number four for the assessment for the traffic signal, you and Engineering are working that out? Kelso: Yes. Warrick: I don't think that that assessment was discussed two years ago when we looked at this project previously. There has been a lot of new development. There have been changes to this area and there are projects ongoing and the extension of Vantage Drive is being constructed with the Stearns Street project. We see changes that are occurring in this area and this will be more than 80,000 sq.ft. of office space that will generate a lot of traffic that will impact this specific street and this intersection so we felt it was appropriate to look at the traffic numbers that will be generated by this development and look at how that needed to be addressed with regard to signalization at that intersection. Kelso: Would our proportional share be based on existing traffic plus expected developed traffic in this area? I'm just trying to get a good idea of what a percentage of that cost would be. Warrick: We haven't formulated an equation at this point. Casey: We're working on that. We will probably take your projected traffic and the capacity and take a percentage. Fugitt: Are the other newly developed properties like the bank and what not pitching in on that? Casey: Any future development would be. Warrick: It will be in between Vantage and this project. Kelso: There is a good chunk of land between here and Vantage. Pate: I would mention that McIlroy Bank was also assessed in the past for a portion of Vantage or something of that nature, just looking back at the previous minutes. Ostner: Which one is McIlroy? Pate: It is the one here at the corner of Stearns and Joyce. Allen: Do you all have any problems with the retaining wall on the east or the comments that were mentioned about the parking islands? Subdivision Committee April 1, 2004 Page 36 Kelso: We had a retaining wall shown before and with the reduction of right of way that was granted by the City Council we were able to take out the retaining wall that was along here and they just went ahead and took out the whole thing not thinking about the trees. The retaining wall back there between the parking lot and the trees is not very tall. It is 3' or 4' tall. Allen: What about adding the islands? Kelso: If that is what we have to do, that is what we have to do. Fugitt: How many islands do we have? Kelso: I'd say maybe four or something like that. Camagey: There may be some adjustments as well. That's why I asked for you to maybe take a little closer look at how those are placed. Fugitt: How are we as far as our parking? Are we close there? Kelso: Is the parking ratio still 1 per 300? Warrick: Right, and you do have a 30% range up or down from that number. That's actually a little different than what we had two years ago was the 30% below as an option but it will depend on your program and whether or not that would work. Kelso: I think we could have plenty then if we could reduce it down 30%. Fugitt: We need the maximum because it is a problem now. The real estate company gets a lot of traffic and we get more than you think. Kelso: There may be some place where we can try to make up at least what we take out. Like Craig said, there may be a way to adjust things so we don't lose any at all. Ostner: I think by my math 240 is the minimum so you are well within your 30% so there is a lot of room for flexibility however you want to do the project. Committee members, do we have any questions? MOTION: Allen: I will move that we forward LSD 04-10.00 to the full Planning Commission. Graves: I will second that. Subdivision Committee April 1, 2004 Page 37 Ostner: Are we forwarding it with a recommendation for approval? Allen: Yes, with the 16 conditions of approval. Ostner: I will concur. Announcements