Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-12-13 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on December 13, 1999 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN VA99-15: Lots 3R & 8 Wedington Place, pp401 PP99-8: Arkansas Research and Technology Park, 247 PP99-14: Woodlands, pp168 LSD99-25: 3R & 8 Wedington Place, pp401 RZ99-33: City of Fayetteville, pp523 RZA99-4: City of Fayetteville, pp476,515 CU99-22: Rohrbach, pp445 PP99-10: Bridgeport IV, V, & VI, pp360 MEMBERS PRESENT Don Bunch Bob Estes Lorel Hoffman Phyllis Johnson Don Marr Conrad Odom Loren Shackelford Lee Ward STAFF PRESENT Don Bunn Tim Conklin Wayne Ledbetter Janet Johns Ron Petrie Charles Venable Dawn Warrick Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved MEMBERS ABSENT Sharon Hoover STAFF ABSENT • • • Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1999 Page 2 Johnson: I will call to order the last meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission for the year We will postpone until the next meeting the approval of the minutes. We don't have those with us this evening. Consent Agenda VA99-15: VACATION LOTS 3R & 8 WEDINGTON PLACE, pp401 This item was submitted by Roger Trotter of Development Consultants, Inc. on behalf of Steve Clary of Clary Development Corp. for property located at lots 3R and 8 of Wedington Place. The request is to vacate the 20 foot utility easement between lots 3R & 8 and a portion of a 15 foot drainage easement located within lot 8. Staff Recommendation Staff recommended approval subject to the relocation of the existing stormwater detention storage. Commission Discussion Johnson: Is there anyone on the Commission who would ask to remove this from the Consent Agenda? Is there anyone in the audience who would want to discuss this item? Seeing none, I would ask for the roll call on the consent agenda. Roll Call Upon roll call, the Consent Agenda was unanimously approved with a vote of 8-0-0. • Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1999 Page 3 New Business PP99-8: PRELIMINARY PLAT ARKANSAS RESEARCH & TECHNOLOGY PARK, PHASE 1, PP247 This item was submitted by Charles Venable on behalf of the City of Fayetteville for property located west of Highway 112 and I-540 interchange and east of Deane Soloman Road. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 289.28 acres with 10 lots proposed. Wayne Ledbetter and Charles Venable were present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation 1. Planning Commission determination of a waiver request to eliminate sidewalk requirements along Shiloh Drive. The Sidewalk/Trails Coordinator, Chuck Rutherford, supports the waiver request due to the terrain and future widening of Shiloh Drive. • 1. Amended - Planning Commission will allow postponement of sidewalk construction along Shiloh Drive by the City until the sidewalk is needed or Shiloh is improved. • 2. Curb cuts shall be limited to interior streets and shall conform to Design Overlay District requirements with regard to spacing. 3. A unified design theme will be set for this subdivision prior to the first large scale development, and no later than when the final plat is processed for phase I. 4. All Plat Review and Subdivision comments. 5. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications, and calculations for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, sidewalks, parking lots and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval All improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements. 6. Sidewalk construction shall be in accordance with the current standards to include a minimum 6 foot sidewalk with a minimum 10 foot green space on both sides of all streets except Moore Lane which shall have a minimum 6 foot sidewalk with a minimum 6 foot green space on both sides. 7. Preliminary plat approval is valid for one calendar year. • Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1999 Page 4 Commission Discussion Johnson: This is the first phase of development of the City's Research and Technology Park. There are various issues that we have before us on this preliminary plat which the City is bnnging forward. We have the typical conditions of approval as recommended by the staff We have one item that the Commission does need to specifically address and that is the request for the waiver to eliminate one sidewalk along Shiloh Drive. Tim, have you had a chance to present this to the City and do we have the conditions of approval signed this evening? Conklin: The City does agree with the conditions. We need to resolve the issue with condition number one and that is the issue of the sidewalk along Shiloh Drive. Johnson: The Shiloh Drive sidewalk is proposed by the City to be waived. I wonder if perhaps the wording might not be better to say "postpone" until either the City determines that the time has come to build it or until Shiloh is widened, which ever comes sooner. We took a look at this on our tour on Thursday and found that Shiloh at that location has no curb and the lay of the land there is such that it looks as if building a sidewalk would be difficult and might not be used at this point. The City anticipates that Shiloh will be widened and that would be the time that the City would build that sidewalk. Tim; do you have anything additional? Conklin: For the Commission's information, lot 1 was approved as a lot split at the December 2, Subdivision Committee meeting. Lot 1 is included as part of this plat and the City Council did approve the sale of that lot to Interface Computer. They will be bringing forward a large scale development early next year. On condition number 2, we have curb cuts limited to Technology Blvd. Interface Computer will need a temporary curb cut or drive from Shiloh Drive until that street is -constructed. Johnson: But only a temporary curb cut. Are there initial questions that any member has of the City? Mr. Venable, did you want to make a presentation or are you here for our questions? Venable: 1 do not have a presentation but I will be happy to answer any questions. We will accept the wording "postpone" with regard to the sidewalk. Johnson: Okay. It seemed to me that if the language said to "waive" the sidewalk, one might think we didn't think it ever would be built. We know that it will be built. We just don't know when. Bunch: This is a minor point but on the drawing we were given for the plat, it says 14 Lots • but in the staff report it refers to 10 lots. That needs to be corrected to be consistent. • Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1999 Page 5 Conklin: The correct number is 10 lots. When this initially came through, phase one was larger and we have reduced the number of lots within phase one and it is now 10 and it will be corrected on the plat. Public Comment Andrea Radwell, representing the student chapter of the American Fishenes Society at the University of Arkansas was present. Radwell: I'm here as a citizen and a representative of the University. As some of you are aware, we were involved with this project since 1990 with regard to a fish that exists on that property. That is how the American Fisheries Society got involved in this business before you tonight. In 1990, the City contacted us about a piece of wetland that exists on this property. At that time, they learned that Steve Wilson who is now the director of the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission had identified a fish known as the Arkansas Darter. This is a relatively rare species that exists only in a few sites. It exists in the Arkansas River drainage and we believe that there were probably about 5 sites in Arkansas but there are 2 left at this time. We felt that because the fish is named after our state, it would be really unfortunate to lose this species. That is how we • got involved initially. What we did.in 1990 is the City asked us if we would like to be the stewards of 7.5 acres were identified habitat of the Arkansas Darter. At that time, they were very cooperative in helping us to protect the fish. We had it completely fenced off and removed the cattle that were coming through the stream. They built a berm to protect the stream and all of that resulted in about a 10 fold increase in the population of Arkansas Darters. Last year, Mr. Ledbetter contacted the University to tell us that they were going to proceed with the development of the Technology Park and would be developing in that area. We are very pleased with the degree of cooperation that we have received from Mr. Ledbetter and from everyone in the City. They have been wonderful in listening to our concerns. There have been a number of people who have expressed concerns about the Arkansas Darter and we feel they have been very sensitive to the issue. We are pleased with the present plan that has been submitted but we have one concern that we would like for you to address. There is a tentative road extending from Technology Drive across Clabber Creek and connects to Truckers Drive. I understand this is a tentative suggestion. Our concern is that if this proposed wetlands is to be designated, what assurances do we have in the long run to protect this nver? • Johnson: On the phase before us tonight, which is phase one, none of the streets that I see even come relatively close to the wetlands. Are you talking about a road that crosses the flood plain? Ledbetter: That is a proposed extension of Digital Way. Johnson: That is a culdesac that ends before the flood plain. Is there a plan for that street to • Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1999 Page 6 cross the stream? Conklin: The street extension of the culdesac is not a part of Phase one. However, that is on our Master Street Plan and the Engineering Division has shown that possible future street connection because the Master Street Plan shows a connection to Truckers Drive. Estes: Would you like a current plat? Radwell: Yes. Johnson: Tonight, we are not dealing with the extension of that street. We are dealing with the area off Shiloh Drive. That is a Master Street Plan issue and we can't deal with that at all this evening. To my knowledge, changes to the Master Street could originate here but they typically would originate with the Council. Conklin: Typically, the City Council has initiated changes to the Master Street Plan. The Planning Commission could initiate a change. At this time, we are only discussing phase one. If the Planning Commission wanted to initiate a change, we would do public notification and place it on our agenda. Johnson: I would request that this evening, we only address the area of phase one. It does not include that street. The notice for that issue has not been addressed and we are not in a position to take any action on that issue this evening. I would request that you limit your comments to this particular phase that is before us. I would mention that we have a very lengthy agenda and some of our members have conflicts and will be leaving our meeting. It would be particularly helpful tonight if we only talk about those issues that are on the agenda. Radwell: It was my understanding that before they could go ahead with this, the entire plan had to be approved. They couldn't go ahead and do one phase without showing the whole. In other words, you're saying that you're going to work on the first phase and this issue will be dealt with later. Conklin: That is correct. Tonight we are discussing phase one which is 10 lots. Preliminary plat approval gives the authority to construct improvements, such as the streets, sidewalks, and water and sewer within that phase. In order to subdivide additional property on this tract, they will have to bring another preliminary plat through. At that time, we will deal with the Master Street Plan issue. If the Planning Commission so desired, they may initiate an amendment and bring that to a future meeting. • Radwell: You do not have to mitigate the wetlands to start your plans? You don't have to worry about the wetland designation? We can address it at a later date. A part of the 289 acres is Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1999 Page 7 wetland. Are you mitigating part of this in return for developing the rest of it? Venable: We are working with the Corps of Engineers and others to come up with a plan. We haven't submitted our proposal. The wetland area went from 7.5 acres to 90 acres. We're working on it. We are aware of the problems. It will probably be spring before we know. Radwell: Thank you for your time tonight and I look forward to communicating with you in the future. Further Commission Discussion Johnson: We have one waiver that we must deal with specifically and that is the issue of the sidewalk along Shiloh. All the other sidewalks would be built as the development progresses. Hoffman: After touring the site at the agenda session, I am in agreement with the proposal by the City to postpone the sidewalk construction along Shiloh. The City will build the sidewalk when it's needed, if it's needed, and where it's needed. On the overall plat, I would like to formalize discussion that we will deal with the street issue when that phase comes through. I had a call from the property owner at the comer of Moore and Deane Soloman. This park wraps around the A-1 property on the northeast corner. The property owner was concerned about improvements to Moore Lane not being shown. Phase one does not abut this property but future phases will. 1 would like that noted as a future concern. Estes: With regard to phase one, is there total and complete compliance with the Wetland Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act? Does phase one have any impact whatsoever on the Wetland Protection Act or the Endangered Species Act? Are we in compliance with regard to phase one? Ledbetter: We are involved in trying to get a permit through the Corps. There is some confusion. They want to see the entire picture of the development instead of the phases. We have shown them the entire picture. We will be taking care of that. Estes: My question was limited to phase one. Are you telling me that there are phase one issues and we are not in compliance? Venable: We cannot start construction on the streets until we have satisfied the Corps. That is why we split the lot for Interface Computer. We can put in the water and sewer lines. The proposed street does cross a small area which is designated as wetland. Estes: As we look for approval of the preliminary plat, we should condition that upon compliance with the Wetland Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act. • • • Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1999 Page 8 Venable: I have no problem with that. Petrie: With this development like any other development, we would not expect the wetland mitigation plan and those items to be addressed at this point. Those are federal provisions, so no matter what conditions the Planning Commission places on it, those will apply. Estes: As I look at the request to waive the sidewalk requirements along Shiloh Drive, the one lot in question drops in elevation approximately 30 feet from the southwest corner to the northeast corner and I would certainly be agreeable to postponing the sidewalk requirements along Shiloh until improvements are made to the extent that it would be feasible to place those sidewalks. MOTION Hoffman: I'll move approval of preliminary plat 99-8 subject to review comments and that item number one to include that the sidewalk merely be postponed and not waived. Odom: Second. Johnson: We have the motion by Commissioner Hoffman and the second by Commissioner Odom that we approve preliminary plat 99-8 subject to the 7 conditions of approval. Condition number one would be amended to read: "That Planning Commission allow postponement of the building of the sidewalk along Shiloh Drive by the City until the sidewalk is needed or Shiloh is improved." Is there discussion of the motion? Would you call the roll? Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. • Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1999 Page 9 PP99-14: PRELIMINARY PLAT WOODLANDS, PP168 This item was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of Tom Terminella for property owned by Henry Shreve located at the northwest corner of Howard Nickell Road and Hwy 112. The property is within the Fayetteville planning area and contains approximately 72.09 acres with 10 lots proposed. Dave Jorgensen and Tom Terminella were present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation 1. All conditions of Washington County Planning Board approval shall also be conditions of approval at the City level including: 1. Note the 911 addresses for each lot on the plat. 2. Note the width and surface type of Howard Nickell Rd and Hwy 112. 3. Note the size of the tiles to be installed under the drives for lots 1 through 7. 4. Provide the appropriate signature block on the plat. 5. Show the building setbacks and utility easements. 2. Both Howard Nickell Road and Hwy 112 in this location are classified as principal arterial streets on the Master Street Plan. Dedication of right of way to meet the Master Street Plan requirement of 55 feet form centerline is a condition of this plat. The dedication along Hwy 112 must be by warranty deed as this is a state highway. 3. The possible need for additional street connections will be reviewed upon further division of any of these lots. 4. All Plat Review and Subdivision comments. 5. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, sidewalks, parking lots and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval All improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements. 6. Preliminary plat approval is valid for one calendar year. • 7. Fire protection will not be available unless additional fire hydrants and larger waterlines Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1999 Page 10 are installed. Commission Discussion Johnson: The County Planning Board has approved this development. There is no requirement by the City for any new streets to be built because all of the lots front either Howard Nickell Rd or Hwy 112. There are 7 conditions of approval I have a question about a possible eighth condition of approval In the background information, you have noted that on the plat there will be restrictions which the developer has offered that 10 estate lots will be constructed with a restriction preventing any additional lot splits for a period of 15 years. What is the status of that? Is that something that the developer has mentioned and if so, why is it not in the conditions of approval? Conklin: The developer mentioned that he would restrict lot splits on those lots. We did not make that a condition of approval There wouldn't be a problem including that as a condition of approval at final plat or you can add that tonight. That was offered by the applicant. Johnson: It seems to me that if it's been offered and it is before us now, then our work is easier to add that as condition number 8. We require that the developer note on the plat the restriction which the developer has proposed that 10 estate lots will be constructed with a restriction preventing lot splits for a period of 15 years. Add that as number 8. Any additional information? Conklin: Johnson: Conklin: Jorgensen: years Terminella: owners. Johnson: Conklin: Johnson: Staff has no additional information. Has the developer seen the conditions of approval and signed off on those? Yes, he has. The last item that you mentioned about lot splits, Tom would prefer that to be 10 I would prefer it to be 10 years. I would leave that up to the individual lot Would a lot split in this location have to come back before us? That is correct. We can omit that. • • • Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1999 Page 11 Public Comment None. MOTION Odom: I move approval of preliminary plat 99-14 subject to all staff comments. Johnson: Is there a second? Marr: I'll second. Johnson: We have the motion by Commissioner Odom and the second by Commissioner Shackelford that we approve preliminary plat 99-14 subject to the 7 staff conditions of approval. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1999 Page 12 LSD99-25: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT 3R & 8 WEDINGTON PLACE, PP401 This item was submitted by Roger Trotter of Development Consultants, Inc. on behalf of Clary Development Corp. for property located at lots 3R and 8 Wedington Place. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 11.79 acres. Roger Trotter and Jeff Maxwell were present on behalf of the request. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards ordinance including signage. 2. Planning Commission determination of 2 requested variances: a. Variance from §162.2(D)(6) of the Design Overlay District requirement of 200 feet minimum between curb cuts. Staff supports this variance request. Only a portion of this development lies within the Overlay District (along Steamboat Drive.) Previous Planning Commission actions on the project for the Bank of Fayetteville (lot 2) and the location of a service drive to access the rear of this project have impacted the spacing of curb cuts for this project. b. Variance from §172.01 Parking Lot Design Standards requirement for drive aisles of 24 feet maximum. The applicant is requesting 30 foot wide drive aisles in several locations. Staff does not support this request except for the truck access drives located north of the proposed buildings. The adopted standard for a residential street in the City of Fayetteville is 24 feet wide. This width is adequate for an interior drive aisle within a shopping center when traffic is expected to move much slower than it would on a standard city street. 3. Easement vacation for the existing 20 foot utility easement and a portion of the existing 35 foot drainage easement located to the west of Lot 8. 4. Sanitary sewer assessment in the amount of $5,325 for improvements in the Hamestring Creek Basin. 5. The proposed detention pond must be sodded and have a concrete trickle channel. The detention pond and all drainage structures located outside of the street right of way will be privately owned and maintained. • • Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1999 Page 13 6. Fire protection and fire hydrant locations shall meet the more stringent of the published water standards or the Fire Chief's request. Approval from the Fire Chief must be provided prior to approval of the construction plans. 7. Plat Review and Subdivision comments. 8. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications, calculations for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, sidewalks, parking lots and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements. 9. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 6 foot sidewalk with a minimum 6 foot green space along Colorado Drive and Steamboat Drive. These sidewalks have been guaranteed as a condition of the final plat for this subdivision. 10. Large scale development approval is valid for one calendar year. 11. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required. a. Grading and drainage permit b. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City as required by §158.01. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. c. A final landscape plan. Specifically provide notes and details for appropriate planting bed preparation and plant installation. Commission Discussion Johnson: We must address the Commercial Design Standards and we must make determination of the 2 requested variances. Does the applicant agree with the other remaining conditions of approval? Conklin: I believe that they do. Johnson: Staff does support the variance for the distance between curb cuts. As I understand, the reason is that previous locations of curb cuts which the Commission has authorized and some or all of which are already built. Because of the placement of those curb cuts, it has impinged on this property so that the curb cut will be at a distance less than 200 feet. • Conklin: When Wedington Place was subdivided, they agreed to provide an east/west access behind the Bank of Fayetteville and Sonic. You granted the Bank of Fayetteville a Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1999 Page 14 variance on the curb cut and as a result of those 2 actions, staff does support the waiver. Johnson: Do you know the distance between those 2 curb cuts? Conklin: Approximately 150 feet. Johnson: The other matter is the 30 foot drive aisle. I believe the 30 foot drive aisles are located essentially on the northern part of both lots and also the drive on the southern part of those lots. Staff disagreed with allowing the wider drive surface since the street standard is 24 feet in width. Staff felt that was additional concrete that was not necessary. Conklin: Our parking lot standards require 24 foot aisle width for 2 way traffic in parking lots. The maximum width of a driveway for 2 way is 24 feet. Staff felt that if the parking ordinance provided 24 feet maximum and the residential street design standards provided 24 feet for a street that 24 feet would be adequate for this development. Johnson: What did Subdivision discuss in terms of the waiver? Did you see a need for the 30 foot wide accesses? Hoffman: Our discussion in Subdivision was twofold. We discussed safety of the wider aisle width and the possibility of cars traveling faster in areas with large pedestrian traffic. The other was the area of approximately 10 spaces north of the Bank of Fayetteville. Those would back out into the major east/west access aisle. In terms of the safety issues, I was persuaded by the discussion that increased width was needed in front of the grocery store and retail for drop off and pick up functions and so forth. Personally, I was not convinced and I am concerned about the parking area having to back out into that busy drive along the southern property line. Everything else with regard to the parking lot layout and the driveway locations is fine. Johnson: It seems to me that if 24 feet is wide enough for a street and since that is the requirement for parking lots then I believe safety is well taken care of with the 24 foot width. It seems to me the wider the street, the faster the traffic. The wider the street by the Bank, the further one has to back out into the street. If residents can back into a city street, then they could do it here. There is only parking on one side of the drive. I think 24 feet is wide enough with the exception of the service driveto the north which is requested to be 30 feet at the entrance. I think staff would support that. Conklin: That's correct. Johnson: Anything else initially on the 30 foot wide drive aisle? Hoffman: I would like to ask staff specifically about their view of the parking spaces • • Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1999 Page 15 backing into the aisle. They are for the Bank of Fayetteville employees. What do you think about the safety of having.10 spaces, regardless of the aisle width, backing into traffic? Conklin: We do not recommend cars backing into drives. That is why we have the parking lot ordinance. We don't allow parking spaces to be built directly off our streets. On this development, this would not be the main entrance and I'm not sure how much conflict you might have with people going east to west. Typically, we would not like cars backing up into a drive. Hoffman: Since this is not the primary entrance and since it will be used by employees only, are we mitigated? Conklin: If employees are using that, more than likely they will not be coming and going all day. Johnson: Does the applicant have a presentation? Maxwell: Based on past experience, we see the need for a 30 foot drive in front of the store particularly because of turning movements associated with coming and going in all the various aisles. We have learned from other people's mistakes. We've seen shopping centers with 24 foot aisles and they don't work. I don't have engineering data or nice drawings that show you that but we have shopping centers in Little Rock that other people have done and the parking lots there don't work. Johnson: I note the drives are segregated. They're like streets. One is called Tahoe Drive. There are broken islands that segregate the parking lot from this drive. These aren't drives through the middle of parking lots. They are drives along the north and south ends of the parking lot. You're making it clear it is something you want to do. Is there anything else? Maxwell: I think we've worked out everything else with staff and we will continue to try and do so. Johnson: Anything else on the aisle widths? Hoffman: On the Commercial Design Standards review, the first elevations that were brought to the Subdivision Committee along the east and west and the sides and back of the building were revised and have been brought back with accents and pillars or brick columns as well as contrasting color and additional landscaping to better address the design standards. Those were the major items. I think the access has worked out well. We're just dealing with the appearance of the building and the circulation. The elevations have been revised and incorporated our comments and I think they meet the intent of the Design Standards. Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1999 Page 16 Johnson: There were a couple of sides of the building which I was concerned about. One is Elevation A. That is a long side and I want to raise the issue of whether it has much detail or articulation. The other is Elevation H. If all the other Commissioners think that these pass muster without any problem, then I guess you might explain why you think so. Conklin: We worked with the developer this afternoon on Elevation A and they are in agreement to add another column at the end along Colorado Drive. It would be similar to the colunm pictured on Elevation B. Take that column and basically repeat it at the corner on Elevation A. Also, there is a trash compactor where you see the 2 doors on Elevation A. They are proposing screening on their site plan We talked to them about what type and screening and they are going to continue the split face block wall around the front of those 2 doors which is actually further to the north and allows for that trash compactor to be located in that area. If you refer to Elevation H, that shows a pretty good representation of the column which we have asked them to add to the west side of the building. Johnson: What is smooth face CMU? Maxwell: That is concrete block. Johnson: Commercial Design Standards is something without much of a firm standard. It is a matter for us to decide. If no other Commissioner is concerned about these 2 elevations, then I don't want to get into it. Maxwell: It will be the same color as the typical finishes throughout the project. Hoffman: The backs of buildings are just a problem especially when they are going to be viewed from the apartments behind. Based on previous experiences with other projects, we were not getting enough detail on the faces of the buildings. This is more than the project on Township provided. Plus, we have a double screen along the back property. We have one for the apartments and we have one for this project and screening along the entrance to the service drive. That has persuaded me that we've come closer to meeting the requirement for screening the ugly, back of the building. Conklin: Mr. Maxwell, on Elevation H you are showing what appears to be a column on the smooth face concrete block. What is that? Maxwell: That area would be off set from the other area of the wall by maybe a few inches to break it up and give it some relief. The line in the middle of the column is the roof drain. That would project out. Marr: When I look at Elevation H in comparison to all of the others which are EIFS, • • • Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1999 Page 17 why not do it all to get the same design. Maxwell: Elevation H does not show the entire back of the shopping center. Warrick: The rear of every building is smooth block except for the grocery. Johnson- Elevation H is the back of what is called the 10,000 square foot retail building? Maxwell: Yes, ma'am. Johnson: My concern is that people traveling south on Steamboat can see that. Conklin: Yes. The landscaping they are proposing may help mitigate that view. Maxwell: The materials we have chosen for the back of buildings were for security reasons. We could do the EIFS material and it would be cheaper. We've had other shopping center where you have security concerns at the rear of a shopping center. Our reason for block back there is strictly security. In every aspect of color and finish it will match the rest of the shopping center. (Commissioner Odom excused himselffrom the meeting.) Public Comment None Further Commission Discussion Johnson: On Elevation H, if we could do something like the false columns it might be somewhat helpful. It seems to me that is a large expanse of an unbroken wall which is one of the things in Commercial Design Standards which we are to avoid and to a degree it's also a problem on Elevation A. We have one change on A which is the column coming around. I'm open to motions or to suggestions. MOTION Hoffman: I make a motion to approve LSD99-25 subject to Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards Ordinance including signage with the addition of columns along Elevation H as shown on Elevation A and granting the variance only for a 30 foot drive aisle in front of the grocery and retail building and at the service entrance and 24 feet along the south property line with the rest of the 11 review comments. • • Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1999 Page 18 Estes: I second the motion. Johnson: We have the motion by Commissioner Hoffman and seconded by Commissioner Estes that we approve the large scale development with a requirement under Commercial Design Standards that the columns like those on Elevation A be added in 4 locations to Elevation H. Marr: I'm confused. Conklin: Elevation A does not show that column but we are talking about a column which is shown on Elevation H to be placed on that end of the building. Johnson: Look at Elevation B. Is that the appearance that you are suggesting? Conklin: That is correct. That is the column that you see at the end of Elevation B. Johnson: I'm talking about the columns all along Elevation B. I'm asking Lorel if that is what she has in mind. Hoffman: Yes, except that has the different EIFS finish instead of the CMU finish. Can you accomplish that with the CMU and add the contrasting columns. Maxwell: I'm not sure I follow you. Johnson: Look at Elevation B. She is requiring that those kinds of columns be added to the Elevation H drawing. Hoffman: With the same spacing. I know that you have different materials. Maxwell: We have some shown on H. Johnson: Look at Elevation B. There is quite a bit more detail in those columns That's the look that I presume the Commission would require. Hoffman: On H, I have no problems. I see some lines that may indicate columns. Maxwell: Tim asked that before. Those sections will be projected out 2 to 4 inches. They are projected pilasters. Hoffman: You'll carry the color band like Elevation G to that end of the building. Maxwell: Yes, that is correct. • • • Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1999 Page 19 Hoffman: Would staff be comfortable with coordinating this? Conklin: That would be fine. Hoffman: I don't like to do detail work here before the Commission. I think we can rely on staff to carry this out. RESTATED MOTION Johnson: I need you to restate your motion. Hoffman: With regard to Commercial Design Standards that the developer revise Elevation H to coordinate with Elevation G with regard to column spacing and color banding details. Estes: I accept the motion as restated. Johnson: And further that the 30 foot drives would be allowed for the service drive and in front of the grocery store and the retail building. The only place the 30 foot wide drive aisle would not be allowed is on the southern boundary of the property. Is there discussion of the motion? Marr: Are there any other similar types of development which have the 30 foot drives within the development? Conklin: Service Merchandise and TJMaxx have 30 foot drives off of Joyce Blvd. The drive in front is also 30 feet. Johnson: Let me be sure I understand. You are giving the applicant a 30 foot wide drive aisle on what is called Tahoe Drive the entire length aren't you? Hoffman: Yes. Johnson: That is just south of the retail building. My problem with this is it seems to me that if we do this then we have essentially said that the City's parking lot standards are not good standards and if someone asks if they not be complied with then we give it to them. I have not heard a persuasive argument as to why this is a unique location and why this parking lot should have wider drive aisles. I will vote against the motion as it now exists for that reason Marr. All I heard from the applicant was that it worked better in Little Rock or that it didn't work. Is there other information? • • Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1999 Page 20 Trotter: We agree with staff that traffic will be moving slower, much slower than on a standard City street. The 2 east/west drives that we are proposing to be 30 feet will have a lot of turning activity getting in and out of these parking areas. Our client has found that it doesn't work well. To see if we were asking for something unusual, I went out and measured other drives. I measured the new Wal-Mart off of Hwy 45 and it has a 28 foot drive in front and it has a 38 foot primary entrance drive. I went across the highway to Harps and it has a 36 foot drive in front of its store. We're not asking for anything unusual here. We're simply asking for a variance. I don't think that's to say that the street design standards are inadequate or need to be overhauled. Ward: The reason I agree on the 30 feet is that at grocery stores, you'll have RV's towing a boat or another vehicle and you have people stopping in front of the store to let people off and you start getting all that traffic in there and it gets bogged down. I don't think 24 feet is wide enough especially when you're trying to get people in and out of the building and all the big vehicles makes it tough. Johnson: Tim, can you think of any examples of grocery stores where the drive aisle in front is the standard 24 feet wide. Conklin: I did not have a chance to check the grocery stores. I did look at Service Merchandise and they have speed bumps in front of their store and I observed a truck stopped along the curb and traffic being able to pass in both directions. Johnson: Any further discussion on the motion which is to approve with the one proposed change to Elevation H. We have the 30 foot wide aisle allowed on the service drive. Let me ask about the northwest comer of what is called the grocer building. Is that included in your motion? Hoffinan: Yes. The entire aisle widens to 48 feet or so. Johnson: That is 30 and then widens to 36 and then the entire south of the grocery building and the retail building is 30. The extreme property boundary is 24 feet. Ho man: To further clarify my thoughts, on the wider aisle in front of the grocery store, it is my observation that with as many pedestrians and cars and trucks and any number of things, I don't want to create a really wide no man's land. I think Harps is actually a bad example of having an aisle too wide You feel like you're walking through the driving range or the freeway to get from the parking space to the store This will allow a certain amount of flexibility for traffic. I think probably with the almost certain addition of speed bumps, I don't think that we're going to be putting people in jeopardy in this particular location. I think the cross drive on the south really does need to be narrower to discourage the cut through traffic or the people just going from point A to point B and not going to any store but just trying to cut through for any Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1999 Page 21 reason. That should slow them down. Johnson: Anything else? If not, we have the motion to approve with the specific provisions about the drive aisle and the only change on the plan pursuant to this motion would be that the drive aisle on the south boundary would be 24 feet. Otherwise, it would be as drawn. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 6-1-0. Commissioner Johnson voted against the motion. • • • Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1999 Page 22 RZ99-33: REZONING CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, PP523 This item was submitted by Charles Venable on behalf of the City of Fayetteville for property located west of School Street, east of West Street, south of Mountain Street and north of Rock Street. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 2.42 acres. The request is to rezone the property to C-3, Central Commercial. Charles Venable was present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning based on the findings included as part of the staff report on file in the Planning Division. Commission Discussion Johnson: This is the location just not very far west and a little bit south of where we are this evening where the proposed new Fayetteville Public Library would be built. The primary reason that staff has recommended the C-3 zoning is to allow greater flexibility in the design and setbacks from the street. Tim, would you like to add details to the reason for the rezoning. Conklin: Yes. This is the site for the proposed library. It is an entire city block. When staff met with the architect and looked at what zoning would be appropriate in this area, it was noted that R-2 and R -O setbacks would be 25 and 30 feet. We also looked at adjacent land uses in the area and felt that recommending C-3 zoning would be the best zoning for this site. It would allow 5 foot setbacks on all sides. School and West Avenues are classified as collector streets on our Master Street Plan and an additional 15 to 20 feet or right of way would be needed along with the setback. There is one other item that was not in your packet of material for this rezoning and that is that in 1990, the site was rezoned from C-2 to R -O. At that time, Washington Regional Medical Center was looking at constructing an assisted care facility or units on this property. They offered a bill of assurance. The bill of assurance was with regard to trees. In 1990, we did not have a tree ordinance in the City of Fayetteville. I bnng this up in case any Planning Commissioner or those in the audience remembered back to 1990 when this site was discussed. The bill of assurance basically stated that 50% of all the existing trees with the caliper of 8 inch or more in the interior of the site be preserved and that those trees be protected during the construction process and that a minimum 80% of the existing trees 8 inch caliper or more in required setback areas around the perimeter of the site be preserved. This bill of assurance talks about working with the hospital once the development takes place. It is my opinion that if the Planning Commission does recommend this rezoning and the City Council • Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1999 Page 23 does rezone it to C-3 that this bill of assurance would not apply to this property. Johnson: Thank you for that information. Mr. Venable is here. Do you have anything additional for us? Venable: No. I think Tim covered it pretty well. The architect is looking more at the northeast corner which would be the Mountain/School area for the location of this and try to save as many of the trees but the land does slope quite a bit in all directions. It's going to be a beautiful site. If we can get this, it will certainly aid the architect in the design of the building itself. Johnson: Thanks, Mr. Venable. Initial questions? Public Comment None MOTION • Ward: I move approval of RZ99-33 for rezoning. Johnson: Is there a second? Shackelford: I'll second. Johnson: We have the motion by Commissioner Ward and the second by Commissioner Shackelford that we approve rezoning 99-33. Our approval would merely send this on to the City Council for its work. The Council makes rezoning decisions but we do weigh in with our recommendation. Is there discussion of the motion? Hoffman: I have one question for staff with regard to the trees. When the library is designed it will come back through as large scale development and we would review it for the tree ordinance at that time. There is nothing that would preclude that. Conklin: That is correct. At the meeting with the architect one week ago, they have been in contact with Kim Hesse, the Landscape Administrator and they are also working with 2 other individuals to get opinions on what trees to preserve and how to design the building on that site. Johnson: Anything else before we have the vote? If not, then we have the motion to • recommend approval of the rezoning and send it on to the Council. • • • Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1999 Page 24 Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 7-0-0. • • • Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1999 Page 25 RZA99-4: ANNEXATION CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, PP476 This item was submitted by Don Bunn on behalf of the City of Fayetteville for property located south of Persimmon bound on the west by 54th and bound on the east by county road 648. The property contains approximately 320 acres and is in the Fayetteville growth area. Don Bunn was present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation based on the findings included as part of this report. Commission Discussion Johnson: This is the property which the City has purchased and on which it proposes to build the second sewage treatment plant on the west side of town. The staff is recommending approval of this annexation. The commission deals with the annexation and acts on it one way or another but as you know, the City Council makes the final determination as to whether or not the land is annexed. We toured this property in the heavy rain the other day. We know where it's located. It's a large tract of essentially undeveloped property. There is one old house that the city is protecting and I believe there is a cemetery that won't be disturbed. I understand that the house has historic value and it is going to be preserved as well. I believe that the thinking is that the construction is not going to be that close to the house. I don't know that and I don't whether an exact site has been set. I believe the house is not threatened by this project. Conklin: That is correct. The City will work around the historic homestead on this property and leave the cemetery intact. There is enough acreage to site the sewage treatment plant. Between 30 and 40 acres is estimated to be needed for the sewage treatment plant so actually there is quite a bit more land than what truly is needed just for the actual plant. Johnson: Mr. Bunn, do you have a presentation for us or are you here for questions? We are glad to here whatever you have to say to us this evening. Bunn: I don't have a presentation. I will be glad to answer any questions that you might have. The location of the treatment plant on the site is planned to be confined to the south 120 acres. There are two 100 acre tracts to the north which was purchased really for the purpose of making the land adjacent to the our existing city limits. I'll be glad to answer any questions that you have. • Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1999 Page 26 Johnson: Initial questions? Hoffman: Normally an annexation comes with a rezoning and this doesn't have one. Conklin: Treatment plants are a use unit 3 and are allowed as a use by right in an A-1 zone. Therefore, we do not need to rezone this property for the treatment plant. It will come back through the City process as a large scale development and we will see the project again here at Planning Commission. Public Comment M.G. Meyerson of Farmington was present. Meyerson: My question is that 2 years ago there was a vote put before the people on annexing this land into the City of Fayetteville. That was voted down. Can you explain to me the procedure of how this is being brought to light once more and that the City of Fayetteville is going ahead to make plans to purchase the land and annex it? Johnson: It's my understanding and I'll let staff correct me if I'm wrong. It's my understanding that the City has purchased the property. Bunn: Yes. Johnson: The City is then the owner of the property and the City as the owner may seek to annex it's own property which this now is. I believe that is the primary difference. It's one thing if you seek to annex somebody else's property but if you are annexing your own property, I believe that is the way it is typically done. Meyerson: That's very interesting. Thank you. MOTION Ward: I move approval of RZA99-4 for the 320 acres. Johnson. Is there a second? Marr: Second. Johnson: We have the motion by Commissioner Ward and the second by Commissioner Marr that we approve RZA99-4 to annex the 320 acres into the City. Is there discussion? This is to recommend that the Council proceed with the annexation of the land. • • Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1999 Page 27 Hoffman: I will not support the annexation. Not because I don't think that we need more sewer capacity but because I feel that there has been a problem with the site selection in terms of the location. I don't know if we could have found property all ready within the city limits. I'm not up on that. I feel that I need to state the reason why I am voting against this. It's because I would have liked to have been appraised of whether there was property already within the City and not needing to put our sprawl in this area. Johnson: Other comments or questions on this motion? Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 6-1-0. Commissioner Hoffman voted against the motion. 6 Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1999 Page 28 CU99-22: CONDITIONAL USE ROHRBACH, PP445 This item was submitted by Terrell Rohrbach for property located at 1041 N. Woolsey Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0 62 acres. The request is for Limited Neighborhood Commercial Use within a Residential Distnct. Terrell Rohrbach was present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation 1. The photography studio shall be limited to 392 square feet and will remain in the current location. 2. No wall or free standing signs shall be installed. No signs shall be placed in any windows. 3. The appearance of the existing house shall be maintained including materials and colors. Normal maintenance is allowed. 4. The existing paved parking shall not be expanded. 5. Only one photographer shall be allowed to conduct business at this location. Amaximum of 2 employees (photographer and assistant) shall work at this location. 6. The area not used for the photography studio shall remain as a single family home. 7. The water shall be turned off immediately and the business shall not operate if any of the conditions are not met. 8. The conditional use shall be automatically revoked if any condition is not met. Commission Discussion Johnson: This property is on the corner of Woolsey and North Street. It is in the vicinity of Washington Regional Medical Center. I recall when this previously came before us it was a request for a home business. Conklin: That is correct. They applied for a home occupation in 1998 and that was approved by the Planning Commission. It's a 392 square foot photography studio. Staff has placed conditions of approval on this site, house, and studio to make sure that it remains as it is • • • Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1999 Page 29 today. The applicant has signed the conditions of approval. Johnson: I believe the reason for the conditional use being needed is that the applicant is going to move out of this location but I believe his mother or grandmother or close relative is moving into the location. Conklin: That is correct. A home occupation requires that you live in the house where you work. The applicant is planning on moving and has approached the city on the possibility of being allowed to keep the studio inside the structure. Staff has applied this under limited neighborhood commercial use ordinance which does allow photography studios in residential areas. Johnson: Is the applicant present this evening? Rohrbach: I'm available for questions. Tim and I have talked and I agree with all the stipulations. It is my mother that I would like to have living there. Public Comment None MOTION Marr: I move approval of conditional use of 99-22 subject to the staff recommendations. Hoffinan: Second. Johnson: We have the motion by Commissioner Marr and seconded by Commissioner Hoffman that we approve CU99-22 subject to the 8 staff conditions of approval. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 7-0-0. • • • Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1999 Page 30 PP99-10: PRELIMINARY PLAT BRIDGEPORT, PH IV, V & VI, PP360 This item was submitted by Michael Marie of Engineering Design Associates, P.A. on behalf of Richard Doyle, Creekwood Hills Development, Inc. for property located south of Mount Comfort and west of Trillium Lane. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains 36.24 acres with 99 lots proposed. Richard Doyle and Michael Marie were present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation Lots 197 and 198 in Phase VI are designated as a detention pond area and cannot be built upon unless an agreement with the downstream property owner(s) is presented to the Engineering Department which states that they accept the increased storm water flows and they agree that the City will not maintain these discharge conveyance systems across their property. Agreements from the 2 property owners (Simkins and Hendricks) to the northwest have been submitted and are on file in the Planning Division.) 2. The developer shall remove all rocks and sediment in the existing ditch in the Red Oak Park and on the downstream property owned by Clack and Boynton to the satisfaction of all property owners involved. 3. A Master Street Plan collector street is shown to run through this property from east to west. The developer has shown the required 70 foot right of way to be dedicated as a part of this project. At this time, staff recommends the developer construct a standard 28 foot local street in this location (New Bridge Road.) 4. An assessment of $200 per residential lot for offsite sewer improvements to the Hamestring basin will be due at the time of final plat. 5. The developer's engineer is asked to consult with the City's Landscape Administrator near the end of construction to determine the location and species of replacement trees. 6. If requested by the Water & Sewer Superintendent, provisions for future irrigation lines for services that cross streets shall be provided which include a 2 inch service main and 2 inch gate valve. All swales, pipes, detention ponds, and other drainage structures not located in the street nght of way shall be privately owned and maintained by the POA, HOA, or similar entity. • • • Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1999 Page 31 The proposed storm water detention pond is required to be sodded with a concrete trickle channel that connects the inlet and outlet structure(s). 9. All Plat Review and Subdivision comments. 10. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications, and calculations for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, sidewalks, parking lots and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements. 11. Payment of parks fees in the amount of $15,825. This fee satisfies a portion of the dedication requirement and dedication of 0.69 acres of park land to the City. The dedicated park land must be cleared of debris. The driveway off Trillium Drive must be removed from the park property and a park boundary stake must be placed by a surveyor prior to the Parks Division sign off on any final plat for this project. 12. Sidewalk construction in accordance with the current standards to include a minimum 6 foot sidewalk with a minimum 10 foot green space along both sides of New Bridge Road (collector) A minimum 4 foot sidewalk with a minimum 6 foot sidewalk along both sides of the streets designated as local streets with 50 feet of right of way. And, a minimum 4 foot sidewalk with a minimum 5 foot green space along both sides of streets designated as residential streets with 42 feet of right of way. 13. Preliminary plat approval is valid for one calendar year. All phases shown are included in the one year approval. Commission Discussion Johnson: These 3 additional phases in Bridgeport are before us this evening. I notice from the report that there are connections in 4 directions. There is a connection to the north, one to the south, one to the east, and one to the west out of these phases of the subdivision. Staff has recommended approval subject to 13 conditions of approval. Tim, do we have a signed agreement from the applicant setting forth their agreement to all of the conditions of approval. Conklin: We do have a signed agreement. Johnson: The applicant is present and has seen all of these. There are assessments for improvements that this subdivision has contributed to. Let me understand number one. My understanding of condition one is that at this time, 2 of the lots, 197 and 198 will be designated Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1999 Page 32 as a detention pond. However, if the downstream landowners, and I guess we need to know how many and where those landowners are, should sign an agreement that they accept any additional discharge, then that could allow the developer to go ahead and build on lots 197 and 198. Is that correct? Conklin: That is correct. Currently, the developer does not have that agreement in place. There is one landowner and they have not agreed to allow the storm water runoff onto their property. Staff required that the developer prove with calculations that lots 197 and 198 could be developed as a detention pond and they have been reviewed and it does seem like it would work in that location. Johnson: How many downstream landowners in addition must sign this agreement for 197 and 198 to be built on? Petrie: At this time there is one. Johnson: So then, if you would, change the condition and say in the beginning of the second line: "Unless an agreement with one remaining downstream property owner..." Petrie: We wanted to make sure that if that person sold a portion of their lot that the owner would be agreeable. Johnson: What about saying: "An agreement with the owner or owners of one remaining downstream property..." In other words, there is one property you are talking about and even whether it has one owner or 15, everybody who owns that property. Correct? Public Comment Lowell Boynton was present. Boynton: I own property that is adjacent to Bridgeport and lies geographically to the north. I appeared at the Subdivision Committee hearing on October 14 and essentially laid out my concerns. I don't know whether this Commission has seen a transcript of that information or not. I don't want to be redundant if you have but if not, 1 can reiterate my concerns. Johnson: We have a copy of the minutes from Subdivision. Sometimes I read every word • • • Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1999 Page 33 about a particular project. Sometimes I don't. Feel free to go ahead and share your concerns with the entire Commission. Boynton: Mr. Petrie is very familiar with my circumstances. He has been on the property more than once. Basically, my concern is drainage from Bridgeport and developments that lie further upstream and has caused severe erosion on my property and another piece of property between Bridgeport and Hamestring Creek which ultimately receives the drainage. The problem that we currently have is both the erosion and deposition. Erosion is taking place upstream and on parts of my property. Also, gravel from the city park is being deposited on my property and another piece of property. Johnson: Let me share one of the conditions of approval You may be aware of this. The second condition of approval that the staff has put before us is that the developer shall remove all rocks and sediment in the existing ditch in the Red Oak Park and on the downstream property owned by Clack and Boynton to the satisfaction of all property owners involved. Boynton: That's fine. I wasn't aware of that. Johnson: I wasn't sure and I wanted to be sure that you knew about that. Boynton: Well, that addresses one concern that I have. The other is more remediation of a past situation. Does the City or the Parks Department have any recommendation as to reoccurrence and how to prevent or what to do if it does reoccur? Petrie: At this time, there would be no recourse from my understanding. To go back on the developer to clean that offsite property is not possible unless work on this development causes that. The majority of what has been caused on the park and the 2 property owners are from Fieldstone Subdivision and Willow Springs Subdivision. Approximately 195 acres of property developed along Hwy 16 prior to the passage of the Stormwater Management Ordinance. I not too sure who would be responsible to clean it up. I think the city would take it upon themselves to do some of the work. They would certainly want to control the erosion in the park. That is for sure. Johnson: Let me ask a question along that line, Ron. Is my assumption accurate that this development is under the requirement that it will not increase the runoff downstream by virtue of this being built. Petrie: That is correct. In this area, we have seen calculations showing that this will not increase the peak runoff in this existing ditch. That is why on this corner of the property where it drains off, there is no detention shown. • • Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1999 Page 34 Johnson: One of the things that we've seen is when a new development comes in, sometimes, that new development actually ameliorates some of the previous problems rather than exacerbating them. It looks as if there is some of that here because of the clean up of the rocks and sediment in the ditch. Boynton: Yes, but I'm concerned, of course, that any additional drainage that is channeled this direction even though it may not contribute under peak flow conditions, it is certainly in the direction of adding to a water runoff problem that has already manifested itself. It certainly will not improve the situation. I'm concerned that if it persists after the remedial work is done what steps the City intends to take in their own behalf. It's their park that is being deposited on my property. Johnson: You've successfully pointed out one of the more difficult problems that we have in Fayetteville. The beauty of not being out in the flat lands is we have the mountains and some erosion problems. That's not something that we are going to solve here tonight. We do have some ordinances that help. I don't think we can ask more of this developer than require that he not make the problem worse. So, I think you've found the people who can help you the most and that is the Engineering staff and then certainly you can keep up with this project at every stage and I recommend that you do that. Typically, we don't penalize a new developer for the sins of previous developers or people who develop hundreds of other acres and I don't mean to be cavalier but I also don't mean for us to try to resolve problems which we have neither the power nor the authority to resolve. Boynton: I understand. I just wanted to go on record that there was a problem there and the City shares it as well. They have damage to their own property. Johnson: I suspect that is something that the staff is going to be watching. I think that if you continue to monitor it and keep current with what's going on I think that is the best chance that the City will do everything it can. Boynton: My purpose was not to lay the blame at the feet of Bridgeport but it is a condition that exists. Further Commission Discussion Estes: If lots 197 and 198 were designated as a detention pond area, would that solve Mr. Boynton's problem? • Petrie: No, sir. That is a completely separate discharge area. • Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1999 Page 35 Estes: At Subdivision Committee there was discussion about the downstream impact adversely affecting the water shed. Ron, I asked you the question at Subdivision about affecting the water shed and whether we were adversely affecting the water shed and at that time, the information was not available. Has there been any change? Your statement was that if they can show us they are not affecting the water shed, that no improvements would be required and I said that you did not have that information that morning and you said that was correct. Petrie: That information has been submitted and that is the information in this water shed that we are discussing on Mr. Boynton's property. That has been submitted and they have shown that they will not increase that discharge. Estes: Petrie: So, that design issue is resolved in your opinion? Yes, for the preliminary stage. Hoffman: When the project came to Subdivision Committee on the date that it did, it actually had to skip another Planning Commission meeting waiting on these calculations. We had been very specific to stipulate that the drainage issues be addressed and that has to do with the other 2 lots being shown as detention ponds. I think there were some sewer availability letters and other things that have now been documented. We did not have any of those at that Subdivision Committee meeting but it's here now as a result of that. MOTION Hoffman: I'll move approval ofPP99-10. Shackelford: I'll second. Johnson: We have the motion by Commissioner Hoffman and the second by Commissioner Shackelford that we approve preliminary plat 99-10. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 6-1-0. Commissioner Estes voted against the motion. Johnson: Is there any other business? Conklin: There is no other business. I would like to remind the Commission that the • second meeting of December was not scheduled. The next Subdivision Committee meeting will be on December 30 and the next Planning Commission meeting will be on January 10. • • • Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1999 Page 36 Johnson: This gives us the opportunity to wish everybody a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year and we will see back in the new year. Meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m.