Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-04-30 - Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on April 30, 1998, at 8:30 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building located at 113 W. Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS REVIEWED: LS 98-14.00: Lot Split (Carl M. Osborn) LSD 98-13.00: Assisted Care Units LSD 98-12.00: Medical Plaza LSD 98-11.00: East Side Middle School PP 97-5.10: Serenity Place PUD (Revised Preliminary) PP 98-2.00: Preliminary Plat (Easton Park Subdivision) ACTION TAKEN Approved/No further action Approved/To PC Approved/To PC Approved/To PC Approved/To PC Approved/To PC MEMBERS PRESENT: Phyllis Johnson, (Chairperson), Lee Ward, Lorel Hoffman, Conrad Odom and Sharon Hoover STAFF PRESENT: Aleft Little, Tim Conklin, Jim Beavers, Chuck Rutherford, Beth Sandeen, Dawn Warrick, and Debra Humphrey LS 98-14.00: LOT SPLIT (CARL M. OSBORNI 688 MCCLINTON STREET AND 1015 MORNINGSIDE DRIVE This project was submitted by Carl M. Osborn, Successor Trustee for property located at 688 McClinton Street and 1015 Morningside Drive. The property is zoned R-2 and contains approximately 0.62 acres. Findings: This is the first lot split request for the parent tract. There are currently two structures on this parent tract. This lot split will provide lots for each structure individually. The applicant is dedicating as much right of way as he can along Morningside Drive without causing the house at 1015 Morningside Dr. to be nonconforming. Recommendation: Consideration of this project based on staff findings. If the Subdivision Committee chooses to approve this project, staff recommends the following conditions of approval: Conditions of Approval 1. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - AR Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, TCA Cable) 2. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 3. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) 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. 4. Repair of existing 6 ft x 4 ft section of sidewalk which is currently a safety hazard. Staff Comments: Mr. Rutherford stated that the sidewalk repair referenced in Condition No. 4 had already been completed. Subdivision Committee Minutes April 30, 1998 Page -2- Public Comments: There were no public comments. Subdivision Committee Findings: 1. Ms. Hoffman addressed the access to the back property. ❑ Ms. Little stated the subject property has access to Morningside and there is a street to the south named McClinton Street. Mr. Ward moved to approve LS 98-14.00 for a lot split. Ms. Hoffman seconded said motion as stated. The motion carried with a vote of 3-0-0. • Subdivision Committee Minutes April 30, 1998 Page -3- LSD 98-13.00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT (ASSISTED CARE UNITS} SOUTH OF LONGVIEW AND EAST OF WIMBERLY STREET This project was submitted by Northwest Engineers on behalf of Washington Regional Medical Center for property located south of Longview and east of Wimberly street. The property is zoned A-1 Agricultural and contains approximately 39.20 acres. Findings: This project will provide a 58 room assisted care facility located east of the North Hills medical park and south of Millsap Road. The applicant is seeking a waiver of 9 (64 required, 55 proposed) parking spaces. A waiver is also requested for existing overhead electric lines on the property. Recommendation: Consideration of this project based on staff findings. If the Subdivision Committee chooses to approve this project, staff recommends the following conditions of approval: Conditions of Approval 1. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - AR Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, TCA Cable) 2. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 3. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) 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. 4. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a min. 6' sidewalk with a min. 10' • greenspace along both sides of Longview Street 5. Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year. 6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits b. Separate easement plat for this project c. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by §159.34 "Guarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements" to guarantee all incomplete improvements. 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. 7. The City Council must agree to any proposed cost -share of the collector street (Longview Street). Traditionally, the City has participated in the costs above a standard 28 ft. street. 8. Discussion of the alignment of the collector street - possibly to Kenray Street, to Plainview extension. The request is to build Longview to the eastern edge of property. Staff Findings and discussion: 1. At the intersection of Wimberly and Futrall is a piece of property which was brought through LSD by Smith - Brooks Investment and is currently undeveloped. This site under discussion is located east of the existing County Health Department Building. 2. The street for connection from east to west was not named. 3. It was noted even though the street aligns with Longview the developer does not own all of the property needed to make the connection. The waiver request would be to build to edge of development and then would provide a surety bond for the remaining portion of the street - not to construct it at this time because of a question concerning where the tie-in to Longview would be. 4. Kenray Street has right-of-way, but it is a dirt and graveled trail - not a paved street. Also there are three • lots that are vacant on Kenray. • • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes April 30, 1998 Page -4- 5. The City has contracted with Mr. Lewis in exchange for land to build a fire station, and therefore, the City would now be extending Plainview the entire length from Millsap into Longview. (There was an earlier large scale development proposed brought through by Mr. Lewis, but he has now abandoned the project.) 6. Parking Waiver: This facility would be for elderly persons and people who would not be able to take complete care of themselves. The required amount of parking is 64 spaces and applicant requests 55 spaces. Staff does support the request. This facility would consist of 64 units along with 10-12 staff members maximum. The parking lot location would be on the north and east side of the subject property and does allow for expansion in the future. There were grade issues due to the property being on the side of the hill. Parking would be for visitors and would include a drive-thru. 7. Waiver of requirement to put existing overhead line along the north and east side of property. The developer did obtain estimates from $450,000 to $550,000. It was noted there were differences in the lines. Staffmark had requested the same kind of waiver but pulled their request before it could be reviewed for approval. 8. According to SWEPCO, along the northern property line at the rear, there were a drop down for each of the lots in CMN business park. In order to in order to install lines for this project each of the drop -downs would have to be reduced and the cost would be expensive. 9. This development proposed to move the MSP from the current location to another in order to make the planned connection to the east. According to the MSP, if the street were to be constructed according to the MSP as it exists, it would be in the creek bed. ❑ Mr. Jones stated there were some grading problems with construction of the street and the developer were attempting to make it more cost-effective. This traffic pattern would not be problematic according to staff. 10. Mr. Rutherford addressed the sidewalk along Wimberly. Mr. Rutherford stated the requirement for sidewalk when North Hills was built "whichever came first," would bear responsibility for sidewalk construction. ❑ According to Mr. Jones, the property does not adjoin Wimberly since there is a strip of property between the subject property and North Hills. Mr. Jones stated he and North Hills Park were currently working together regarding construction of sidewalk. Mr. Jones further stated the plans had been completed and they were in the process of selecting a contractor. ❑ Ms. Little stated Planning Commission could make the building of the sidewalks a requirement pending construction of this site because the sidewalk could be accommodated within the ROW. She added felt the assurances of North Hills Medical Park were sufficient to guarantee constuction of the sidewalk. Mr. Jim Tenpenny from the audience stated he had met with the North Hills Medical Park this morning and North Hills still intended to honor that commitment. 11. Ms. Sandeen asked the developer to change the trees. She said she had provided them with a list of recommended species. She further stated the parking lot ordinance had been met. Mr. Jones stated the corrections and requirements would be met. Public Comments: Thomas Gil, who purchased property at the corner of Butternut and Village, appeared before the Committee. He was not sure what the proposal was. Ms. Little noted where Mr. Gill's house was located in relation to the proposed project. He stated he would not want travel routed through his subdivision. He noted there to be a mile loop for walking in his neighborhood. He did not want traffic taken from Appleby and is opposed to street being opened. He stated his only concern was Butternut street and traffic through the residential area. He was told he could come to the Planning Commission meeting on May 11" and he would have an opportunity address his concerns before the commissioners. Subdivision Findings: Subdivision Committee Minutes April 30, 1998 Page -5- 1. Offsite assessment improvements for Longview Street 'h dollar amount in form of surety bond. ❑ Mr. Jones stated they would only want to offer a surety bond for the street to their property line due to not being sure of the connection. 2. Ms. Johnson stated the MSP streets and the platted streets need to be named to alleviate any oversights and asked if staff could also review the plans for this. 3. Mr. Jones stated the hospital was asking to build a street to their entrance on Longview and to bond the remainder of the street to the property line. He sais the hospital was not prepared to offer a bond for the connection to Plainview off-site. After discussion with city staff about the homes that this might affect, it was the consensus that the building of Longview all the way to the Plainview extension be considered during this development phase. 4. It was noted that subject property was under one ownership, therefore, this project would not require a lot split. A portion of the property owned has been leased to the County Health Department. 5. There were some questions concerning the right-of-way at Kenray and the request for another surety bond from Lewis for any street development. There was some discussion concerning the intersection at Longview which would provide an option for traffic to turn left to go north onto Millsap. The developer was asked to show this on the vicinity map and to expand the vicinity map in order to view the circulation. There was a question about whether the street was named Burrell or Kenray? 6. Ms. Hoffman inquired concerning grading and how much site cutting was contemplated by developer. ❑ Mr. Jones confirmed the limits of the maximum fill would be 10 to 12 feet towards the back of building. The cuts and fill were calculated to balance the site which would include roughly 40,000 yards. He further stated he would include this information in the next submittal. ❑ Ms. Hoffman stated she wanted to confirm compliance with grading ordinance. Recommendations: 1. Developer needs to provide the amperage of the existing utility lines and the cost involved for underground installation of the east line (as one item) and of the orth ine (as one item) at the Planning Commission. 2. Require the sidewalks to be constructed and completed by the time this project is finished. Mr. Tenpenny, with Washington Regional Medical Center, affirmed the sidewalks would be built and this would be completed. 3. Consider vacating Kenray, and therefore, not contemplate lots with double frontage. 4. Requirement for dedication of 50% of the cost of construction of the Longview connection that serves the fire station or Plainview. 5. Longview would need to be named on the vicinity map as well and the map expanded to reflect circulation. 6. Show the streets on the plats, for example Kenray or Burrell, for Planning Commission to review. Ms. Johnson moved to approve this project be forwarded to Planning Commission with the requirement that the vicinity map be increased to reflect all platted streets and MSP streets, the plat to show mix of trees, the parking waiver be granted, the electric amperage be provided from SWEPCO and a cost estimate for underground each of the two lines, and the surety bond for construction of Longview Street on the propertty and a 50% assessment for construction of Longview Street off-site with cost estimates to be provided to the staff in time for the Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Ward seconded the motion as stated. The motion carried with a vote 3-0-0. Ms. Warrick noted revisions are due by Monday, May 4, 1998, by 10:00 a.m. Subdivision Committee Minutes April 30, 1998 Page -6- LSD 98-12.00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT ( MEDICAL PLAZA) This project was submitted by Northwest Engineers on behalf of John A. Griffin for property located on Lot 14, CMN Business Park north of Millsap road and west of Plainview Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare commercial and contains 1.9 acres. Findings: This project is located on the south side of Millsap Road adjacent to the John Cole retail center. The buildings proposed for medical offices and contains 29,000 sq. ft. on two levels (see CDS materials). Cross access to the south and to the east has been provided. Recommendation: Consideration of this project based on staff findings. If the Subdivision Committee chooses to approve this project, staff recommends the following conditions of approval: Conditions of Approval 1. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - AR Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, TCA Cable) 2. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 3. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) 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. 4. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a min. 6' sidewalk with a min. 10' greenspace along Millsap Road Need to discuss location of sidewalk - it is shown outside of the right of way. 5. Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year. 6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits b. Separate easement plat for this project c. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by §159.34 "Guarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements" to guarantee all incomplete improvements. 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. 7. PC determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards ordinance. 8. All utilities shall be located underground. Staff Comments: 1. The John Cole Building and both lots on either side of proposed project are developed or currently under development. 2. Requirement for the project to be named and the name provided to the Planning Office, and the name to be included in revisions. 3. Commercial design standards: According to the elevation, the building was the same all the way around. Since there are currently side streets, the rear of the building would be able to be viewed, but once John Cole lot is completed, and Plainview running along the side this would not be an issue. ❑ The developer stated the building would consist of brick, dri-vett, metal roof, and glass. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes April 30, 1998 Page -7- 4. It was noted the elevations of the assisted care units (the previous Subdivision Committee item) had not been reviewed. It was noted that property was currently zoned agricultural and would have to come through as a conditional use. The hospital is requesting a conditional use along with the LSD. Mr. Jones said he would check with the architect and submit elevations as part of the CU's. The Planning Commission would see the LSD at the same time. 5. Commercial Development Standards: In the front of the project it was noted the front of the project ( Millsap Road) there was to be 15 feet of landscaped area. This is reducible to 5 feet with approval from the landscape administrator, but a setback reduction form would need to submitted in order to be approved. This adjustment from 15 feet to 5 feet would be in line with the other developments. 6. Any mechanical machinery and equipment would need to be screened from public view. Site coverage calculations need to be provided in order to verify the 85% of coverage (added to plat.) ❑ Dennis Becker, architect, stated the drive -thin for patient loading and unloading and therefore, plenty of road for bypass would be needed. 7. Beth Sandeen, noted tree specifications and islands could only contain small trees or shrubs. Planning requested a copy of her comments would need a copy be provided for their file. Ms. Sandeen stated that the 5' x 5' typical space is inadequate area for trees, as in ordinance. She said the island measurements the island were not adequate for large trees. 8. There was some discussion concerning the ordinance requirements. Ms. Sandeen stated she was currently making amendments to ordinance and this should alleviate her concerns regarding landscaping. Public comments: Dennis Becker, architect for the development, came before the committee. He stated they were requesting a 5 foot variance along the front because they were isntalling landscaping in accordance with the setback reduction option. It was noted the platted subdivision reflects Millsap as a collector street and the right-of-way requirements had changed. He stated the developer was trying to accomplish a transition. ❑ Mr. Rutherford stated property to east was already building 10 feet greenspace and a 6 foot sidewalk There have been other buildings along there who have made that transition with no problems. Mr. Becker stated their request was to reduce 10 feet to 5 feet in order to make this transition adequately. The reduction request was for the westem part of the site. The building was not parallel to the street, the comer was tight, and the 10 foot greenspace did not exist where this transition would be taking place. Therefore, their request was for a waiver on the sidewalk greenspace as per the drawing. The sidewalk would be outside of the right-of-way. ❑ Ms. Little stated they had a choice - to dedicate right-of-way so the sidewalk was in right-of-way and developer would be excused from liability. The other option would be to have sidewalk on private property and the developer would not be excused from any liability. Mr. Jones would make the proper revisions. Mr. Rutherford stated he would review the revisions and if acceptable they would decide the location of right-of-way Mr. Beavers added the trees should not be moved any closer to existing sewer line. Bob Hill, Nickle-Hill Group, stated there was a concern about ingress and egress and they had proposed 2 curbcuts and only one curbcut was allowed. Mr. Hill further stated the 30,000 sf building would include 12-10 attendants. He stated 101 parking spaces were proposed, most of which would consist of patients coming and leaving during the day. With one point of entry he felt traffic flow would be inhibited. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes April30, 1998 Page -8- Ms. Little stated the one curb cut was allowed. Also cross access between developments improved traffic flow and safety issues. Mr. Hill, was concerned about the liability issue with this and it was noted their liability was only to their existing property line. Mr. Hill also commented this would be a retail center with a lot of traffic and did not feel it would be fair to utilize Cole's parking lot for their traffic flow. ❑ Ms. Little stated that Mr. Cole was notified as part of LSD and he would need to speak for himself regarding the curb cut issue and cross access. Mr. Hill, pertaining to their request for an additional curb cut to Millsap noted the other properties along Millsap all have two curb cuts and the owners feel they have been singled out. A concern was expressed about the development to the south on the hospital property. The suggesstion was made to require cross access now if looking at entire piece. One proposed stub out is on the west side and the other is on the east. Driveways are limited in the interest of public safety. ❑ Ms. Little stated the present lot has frontage of 215 feet and generally the requirement would allow 1 curb cut per 200 feet. Mr. Hill expressed concern over the request for a fire hydrant and who would pay for it. Mr Beavers explained the developer would pay for this, and the approximate cost is $1,500 with a water line cost of approximately $5,000. This item would need to be addressed with the staff. Recommendation: 1. Request to receive specified colors for Planning Commission to review. 2. A letter to request for an additional curb cut for Planning Commission. The applicant was advised to bring a drawing of their request for one additional curb cut to the Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Hoffman moved to approve LSD 98-12.00 and forward to Planning Commission with revisions requested. Mr. Ward seconded motion as stated. The motion carried on a vote 3-0-0. Subdivision Committee Minutes April 30, 1998 Page -9- LSD 98-11.00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT (EAST SIDE MIDDLE SCHOOL} This project was submitted by Milholland Company on behalf of Hailey/Amirmoez & Associates AIA for property located on Hwy 45 north of Hunters Ridge. The property is zoned P-1, Public /Institutional and contains approximately 60.07 acres. Findings: This project will provide a middle school on the school district property adjacent to Vandergriff Elementary School off of Hwy 45 East. Recommendation: Consideration of this project based on staff findings. If the Subdivision Committee chooses to approve this project, staff recommends the following conditions of approval: Conditions of Approval 1. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - AR Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, TCA Cable) 2. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 3. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) 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. 4. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a 6' sidewalk along Hwy 45. Staff recommends that sidewalks be installed along the access drives which run between the two schools to accommodate children going from this facility north to Vandergriff School. 5. Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year. 6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits b. Separate easement plat for this project c. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by §159.34 "Guarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements" to guarantee all incomplete improvements. 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. 7. Future expansion is noted. When this expansion is desired, large scale development approval is required and parking must be provided and approved for the expansion at that time. 8. Staff requested sight distance calculations for the new entrance off of Hwy 45 at the Plat Review meeting of April 15, 1998. Staff Comments: 1. Future expansion parking was adequate now but not for future expansion. When expansion is contemplated a new large scale approval will be required. 2. Regarding site distance calculations for entrance off Hwy 45, Ms. Amirmoez had sent a letter to the Engineering Department. Site distance is adequate. A copy for Planning staff was requested. 3. The entry drive would be widened from 32 feet to 36 feet. There was currently a private drive which had not been named. There were no comments from Jim Johnson, 911 Coordinator, at technical plat review. Laleh Amimorez, architect on behalf of East Side Middle School, appeared before the committee members. She stated they are enlarging the existing drive to Vandergriff to allow better traffic flow. There would be three lanes with one turning lane to allow parents to drop off children. Someone questioned the plan for any expansion of Hwy 45 - Mr. Venable stated expansion would not go that far out. The maximum allowed number of students would be 720 • Subdivision Committee Minutes April 30, 1998 Page -10- and staff would consist of 24 teachers and administration. There would be 12 regular classrooms. 0 Ms. Little stated if the courthouse does not have information about the adjoining property ownerto the east, they may want to contact the Garners. Ms. Little stated the Garners may have purchased the property from Mr. Martin. 4. Ms. Sandeen stated there was a separate landscape plat and noted the number of trees adequate. She noted they had sugar maple trees and indicated she would like to be involved when it comes for building permit. She further noted the species may change but would review at time of installation. 5. Mr. Rutherford stated sidewalk changed to 10 feet along Hwy 45 to provide city access to a manhole. The other option would have been to build a driveway. For truck traffic is required and would tear sidewalk. If not reinforced to street standards. 6. Mr. Rutherford also addressed the recommendation for sidewalks be added from the east and from the north. Mr. Rutherford said he had received several requests and comments from parents and PTA concerns for children 7. Ms. Amirmoez stated she understood their request, but the board at the present time would like to wait on placement of sidewalks where grass wears off. She also stated the board was willing to install the sidewalks pending financial availability. Due to financial plans this was not approved at board meeting. 8. The crosswalk across Hwy 45 has a crossing guard on Whippoorwill Court. There were some concerns about striping etc., and Ms. Amirmoez stated this would fall under the highway department. She said they would apply with the Highway department per Mr. Venable for a traffic signal Subdivision Recommendations: • 1. Ms. Johnson reviewed the vicinity maps and noted the MSP streets were not shown. She wanted to see all MSP streets crossing the sites. She asked for the names of the streets to be legible. 2. She requested that all the outer lines be deleted from the plat so that when project comes before the Planning Commission they would be able to deal only with the proposed project. 3. The applicant was requested to check with the school and Jim Johnson, the 911 coordinator, to name the private drive. 4. One-way arrows for clarity of street directions are needed. 5. A signal had been proposed. Perry Franklin will be assisting in the request to AHTD. The request is for a stoplight at the main entrance. 6. The plan needs to reflect the number of classrooms, offices, etc. 7. Contact Mr. Gamer about ownership of the property to the east. Notification may be a problem if all landowners are not identified. 8. Mr. Beavers stated he would meet with the developer and decide the proper location for manhole access. 9. On the vicinity map Planning Commission needs to see the Township street proposal and how this would affect this development. • Connections: Extension of Township is proposed for adjoining projects. Township Street is to the north of subject property (also a city park which the City leases from the school). North of the park would be Township Street Mr Beavers gave them a plat of the proposed Township Street from Easton Subdivision for their review and consideration. Ms. Hoffman moved to approve LSD 98-11.00 be forwarded to Planning Commission along with revisions noted. Mr. Ward seconded said motion as approved. The motion carried with a vote of 3-0-0. Subdivision Committee Minutes April30, 1998 Page -11- PP 97-5.10: REVISED PRELINIINARY PLAT (SERENITY PLACE PUD) This project was submitted by Brian Moore of Engineering Services, Inc. on behalf of Prestige Properties for property located west of Salem Road and north of Mount Comfort Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low -Density Residential and contains approximately 30.97 acres; 116 lots are proposed. Findings: This project is a revised preliminary plat for the 30 acre Serenity Place subdivision. The applicant has increased the number of lots and has relocated greenspace and dedicated all of the greenspace as public for maintenance by the Parks Division. This is begin processed as a Planned Unit Development and therefore contains small lots and a min. of 30% open area (greenspace). Recommendation: Consideration of this project based on staff findings. If the Subdivision Committee chooses to approve this project, staff recommends the following conditions of approval: Conditions of Approval 1. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - AR Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, TCA Cable) 2. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 3. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) 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. 4. Dedication of park land in the amount of 10.15 acres (30%) of the total land area of the development. Note: 45% of this green space is located within wetlands, water bodies, and 10 -year flood plain. 5. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards as shown on preliminary plat submittal dated April 15, 1998. 6. Preliminary Plat approval to be valid for one calendar year. 7. Right of way location for Rupple Road needs to be further discussed. 8. Contribution for 116 lots for the extension of Rupple Road is $147,377.00. 9. A connection fee of $7,200.00 (36 acres @ $200.00 per acre) is required in accordance with the Salem Road water line extension (Ordinance No. 3938 dated 11/7/95). 10. A $200.00 per lot assessment is required for improvements to the Hamstring basin. This is consistent with charges to other subdivisions in this basin. For 116 lots, the fee will be $23,200.00. 11. The capacity of the lift station at Crystal/Salem requires further evaluation by the developer's engineer. Any additional upgrades due to this proposed development shall be at the developer's sole expense. 12. All utilities shall be located underground. See attached letter from Ozarks Electric Cooperative in regard to this requirement. No waiver has been requested by the applicant at this time. 13. All conditions of approval from the September 22, 1997 Planning Commission which are not superseded by conditions listed above apply (attached). 14. The following findings are required for Planning Commission approval of this preliminary plat: §160.121(B) The planning commission shall not approve any PUD unless the commission expressly finds that satisfactory provision has been made concerning the following, where applicable: (1) Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow, and control and access in case of fire or catastrophe; (2) Off-street parking and loading areas where required with particular attention to the items in • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes April 30, 1998 Page -12- (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) subsection (I) above and the economic, noise, glare, or odor effects of the special exception on adjoining properties and properties generally in the district; Refuse and service areas, with particular reference to the items in subsections (I) and (2) above; Utilities, with reference to locations, availability, and compatibility; Screening and buffering with reference to type, dimensions, and character; Signs, if any, and proposed exterior lighting with reference to glare, traffic safety, economic effect, and compatibility and harmony with properties in the district; and Required yards and other open space. Staff Comments: A new submission reflects 116 lots as compared to 98 lots in the previous preliminary plat. A map was presented which reflected the project when it came through the first time. At the top is the configuration approved in 1997 and at the bottom are the 1998 proposed changes. Five acres of additional property had been added to the original 30. Issues to address. 1. Whether this project meets ordinance requirements for a PUD 2. Ingress and egress to the property. 3. Off street parking, utilities, screening and buffering, signs and yardage of required space. A plat was prepared which was approved in 1997. A different plat is now before the committee for approval. Differences were noted as follows: This plat has 116 lots whereas the first plat had 98 Lots; the property on the upper left was not presented to the commission before (it is approximately 5.0 acres). The issue for the Planning Commission to decide is whether the new plat would qualify for a PUD. There are a number of findings that the Planning Commission would need to make in order to approve this project as a PUD. There are seven: 1. Ingress and egress to the property. 2. Off-street parking and loading. 3. Refuse and service areas; 4. Utilities; 5. Screening and buffering; 6. Signs; 7. Required yards and other open space. It was noted that this project came for rezoning in 1997, the original request was for R1.5. The staff advised the developer that R1.5 would allow duplexes and duplex development generally raised concern from the neighborning residents. The staff recommended the applicant request R -S zoning. Both Planning Commission and City Council indicated they did not want R -S zoning, but preferred R-1 stating smaller lot sizes and higher density could be achieved by a PUD. A PUD requires 30% open space. Within the PUD regulation is wording at 160.121 which states "each residential PUD shall provide 30% land area within the PUD as useable public and open space". The project has not been approved because the first revision did not include 30% open space. Now five acres have been added. The request is for the 5 acres to be considered open space for this development, " within the development." The open space has been taken to the park board and approved as park land which creates some deviation from the ordinance. The regulations state " public or private", and the other 13 subdivision PUDS which have been approved and developed have always met the regulation with private open space. Because of the developer's request for the open space to be public instead of private and due to the parks acceptance of this land as park land, staff is in agreement that the open space may serve as the parkland. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes April 30, 1998 Page -13- 1. The item before the committee was to determine whether the proposed open space was within the PUD. ❑ According to Mr. Reynolds, the parks board had a special meeting and considered the open space as park land. Because of concern over maintenance of the ponds, he was willing for that area to be "private". The staff was not aware of the parks recommendation. There was no representation from the applicant at the parks board meeting and there was no information to validate this agreement. 2. Mr. Beavers inquired as to what area the 6.27 acres were with the ponds. Mr. Reynolds stated there were some concern from administration about open space no longer be in private. Mr. Reynolds stated they would be glad to maintain it as a private area, or as a public area. It was noted the 40 acres to the east would be a public park which would more than meet the requirement for public park land. 3. It was noted that the configuration before the subdivision committee took greenspace out of the PUD, but the developer would still want to develop the site as a PUD without the open space. 4. There are currently subdivisions on both sides of the proposed PUD development. 5. Ms. Little stated square footage calculation submitted for the add-on tract is 3.92, north of Serenity Way 3.96, and south of Serenity way 2.8. The applicant would have a total of 35 acres and would meet the 30% greenspace. The PUD ordinance stated no more than ' could be wetland and this development would have 45% of its greenspace in the wetlands. Less than 3 acres would be under water including the pond area, and this would still be counted towards open space. ❑ Mr. Moore stated when they came before Subdivision on the last plat, they had planned to go underground with a tunnel to allow kids to go from one park to the other and because there was opposition to the street crossing the open space. They decided if they removed the two small parks and went to the big park on the 200 acres to the west of subject property, this would benefit everyone. 6. Open space in the northwest corner basically would be 3.9 acres, the south greenspace would be 2.5 acres and the one above in the interior was 1.75 acres. ❑ Mr. Reynolds stated the history was he purchased the 200 acres located next to the property presently owned. He stated they were in the process of having a lot split with the school, and indicated the total property which was owned. He further indicated the 40 acres of land which was committed to parks, which would be dedicated in phases. He further noted Mr. Ackerman stated at some point in time this area would go all the way to Hwy 71. He indicated the greenspace would be accessible which is private, but there was a bill of assurance giving public access to it. He further stated the area is zoned R-1 but would be a planned unit development. He stated they were donating 46.27 acres in all five phases of the development for park land. ❑ Mr. Odom's concern was the consideration of the additional five acres to make up for the 3.9 acres which was formerly in the interior. He said Mr. Reynolds had already committed to give that property anyway. He further stated he felt the applicant was requesting the City to give up something they already have and replace it with something which Mr. Reynolds had already committed. ❑ Ms. Hoffman's concern was why the applicant not doing stamdard R-1 lots with park land. ❑ Mr. Reynolds stated if they developed according to R-1 maximum, the City would end up with 16 acres of required dedication for parkland. ❑ Ms. Johnson stated it was hard to see the benefit of 40 acres if people were sandwiched in according to developer's proposal. ❑ Mr. Reynolds stated when the purchase of the 200 acres came through two pieces of had not been annexed. Mr. Reynolds further noted he dedicated a 20 foot right-of-way on the original preliminary plat and Mr. Whitfield gave 20 foot for Salem Village andthere was 50 foot right-of-way for Rupple Road when it came through. The City was requesting a 90 foot easement. As it stands now, the developer has agreed to build the road 100 feet past the collector as part of trying to get the property annexed and zoned, and the school • • Subdivision Committee Minutes April 30, 1998 Page -14- site set aside. Therefore, he has paid $7,000 for the wedge-shaped property sitting out there lost, because he has also agreed to give 90 foot right-of-way in order to build the road. Mr. Beavers stated it was his understanding the City would build the road, and Mr. Venable confirmed the applicant would reimburse the cost of the trail and 36 foot street. The developer would reimburse the City as the property is developed and sold. Mr Beavers stated Rupple Road north of Serenity would not be on property line as shown because of problems connecting to the road to Salem Village. Mr. Venable stated there was currently not enough information at this time; but the road alignment would have to be switched. He further stated future street work would need to be done. He recommended to leave the street location as it is. ❑ Mr. Reynolds stated at this time they were proposing to move the street over and make lots bigger and move the cul-de-sac back. ❑ Ms. Hoffman stated she felt the committee would need to see the overall concept PUD vsdensity in order to get a grip with relation to park land vs. development as R-1 zoning. ❑ Mr. Reynolds stated there would be 3.23 lots per acre. ❑ Ms. Little noted when calculating density they need to include the five acres. ❑ Mr. Reynolds stated the total acres are 33.8 and gross acres are 35.8 ❑ Ms. Little stated when calculating density you take the size of the property without regard to the streets. ❑ Mr. Reynolds stated he also calculated the average square footage for each lot. He took the acreage and subtracted the area of the street yielding 6350 average sf. consisting of 8145 sf, 6300 sf, 6000 sf, and 5500 sf. It was noted the minimum lot size in R-1 is 8,000 sf and in R -S, 6000 sf. Ms. Johnson requested the density on the east part of the development, east of the open space. She wanted the information at Planning Commission. Mr. Reynolds stated he could but it would not be a fair comparison due to the lot sizes and pulling out the park space. Ms. Harrrington addressed the addition on the opposite side of street so they could look at entire picture of coming in the future. ❑ Ms. Hoffman stated that would be good but they would need to see it all together. She further stated her concern for the lot sizes. ❑ Mr. Reynolds noted he anticipated 600 lots overall as opposed to 700 lots which could be permitted under standard R-1. ❑ Ms. Hoffman stated she would not address future offsite unless the developer was making assurances. When you address the future, the developer may develop it or not, he may move, etc. ❑ Mr. Odom stated his concern about the assurances and using them twice due to the fact the developer has already made commitments. ❑ Mr. Moore stated if the developer would build according to the conventional R-1, at .025 he would be required to donate 2.5 acres, but instead he is giving 10 acres. Issue: • Ms. Little stated the issue was whether the development meets PUD ordinance with additional 5 acres. She has • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes April 30, 1998 Page -15- requested a property line adjustment. No road development or dedication has taken place, therefore, the land on the west could be considered contiguous until the road is built. When the road is bult an automatic lot split will occur. Expecting clearance on the bridge - flood plain would be a concern per Mr. Venable. Per Mr Beavers, a 100 foot setback is required for any structure from a drainage pond, and this would require the ponds to be reshaped make sure. Ms. Harrington noted they would provide a letter concerning the reshaping ❑ Mr Beavers stated he would need a grading plan by Monday. At Plat review a cost share for a collector street was addressed. It will require an estimate, and for the developer to pay for 28 feet. ❑ Ms. Little stated there was a power line along Salem Road. Salem Village received preliminary plat approval March 27, 1995. The ordinance regarding power lines to go underground was passed October 6, 1996, therefore, Salem Village was not required to put lines underground at that time. At the time the 1997 plat for Serenity plat came through, utility companies did not identify overhead power lines, therefore placing lines underground. This was not mad a requirement. It is staff's understanding the developer requests a waiver. They submitted a letter from Ozark Electric stating they would prefer not to put the lines underground due to the cost being $116,197.00. This is a major feeder line which has been recently upgraded. It is designed to carry several large loads, and this waiver request would have to be addressed. ❑ According to Ms. Little, on the 1997 plat there were 7 lots in the flood plain. According to our ordinance, if a lot is partially in flood plain the lot has to be an acre in size. The condition of approval for the 1997 plat. The layout as shown is subject to a letter of Map Amendment from the developer's engineer.... to FEMA. If the LOMA is not accepted then all of the lots within the flood plain must be a minimum of one acre. The preliminary plat must document this requirement. Planning Commission approved this the plat with this condition September 27, 1997, and to date the developer has not initiated the LOMA. The LOMA is a long process - 6 months minimum - and the plat as shown does not meet requirements. ❑ The cost for Rupple Road per the 1997 plat assessed for 98 lots was $124,000. Since then the number of lots have increased by 18. Now there are 116 lots which would bring their assessment to $147,377.00. In the meantime, in dealing with the 200 acres adjacent, the developer has gone to council and listed his share for Rupple Road construction at $115,617.50. The problem before the Planning Commission is the developer now believes his share is still $115,617.50, when the Planning Commission had previously approved $124,000. ❑ Ms. Harrington stated there was a meeting concerning Rupple Road involving Mr. Rose, Kit Williams, and Mr. Venable concerning the 200 acre parcel. The council members were wanting Mr. Reynolds to build more road than what was required and he ultimately agreed. Therefore, the calculations were addressed according to the footage of square feet of road along the development, he would be spending more than what the road would actually cost. At the time, everyone involved indicated it would not be fair for Mr. Reynolds to reimburse the City for the actual cost of the road, and this was how the calculations were made. If you add the calculation, according to impact fees, he would be spending more than the cost of road. The impact is based on per lot and not a linear footage calculation. The future development on the large tract would not necessarily access Rupple Road. ❑ Mr. Venable stated the developer would be obligated to pay 100% of the costs for the 28 foot section throughout the length of his property. He stated he had not seen the final agreement until he received a copy of it after the council approved it. Mr. Venable stated the developer would pay whatever the cost actually would be. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes April 30, 1998 Page -16- Mr. Reynolds stated Mr. Venable had reviewed the figures. ❑ According to Mr. Venable now Rupple Road would run through this subdivision and would include the bridge. Issue: Open space as subdivision and road north. ❑ According to Ms. Little, Subdivision regulations No. 159.33 "at the time Planning Commission grants preliminary plat approval, the planning commission shall determine whether the proposed subdivision creates the need for off-site improvements and the portion of the cost of any off-site improvements which the subdivider shall be required to bear". ❑ Mr. Odom stated he though we should assess this project. Then the developer can go to City Council and review the assessments to make whatever changes they deem necessary. The actual cost of the road was calculated at $150,000. O Mr. Venable stated the plan was to open the school January 2000 and road would need to be open prior to then. Public: Jim Kimbrough of 2420 N. Salem Road, addressed the committee. He stated he appreciated the the Committee was addressing people living in packed -in situations. He said the Subdivision had been previously approved, issues appealed before the City Council, and voted down. He stated the applicant made a deal in the past and stated applicant should stand by that. He further stated the applicant was aware of the deal when he acquired the extra property. He noted there were problems in the area which would not be relieved - concern was intensity of traffic. Therefore, he stated his opposition to further consideration. He also stated he had heard about telephone conversations here and there, and deals being made and does not feel this was proper procedure. Terri Kimbrough of 2420 North Salem addressed the committee. She stated her concern about the density, the size of the PUD and whether there would be enough greenspace for the children to play. She stated lots are small and there would be young families with children and open space with ponds. Her concern was for the liability of open ponds. She stated she had lived there for 37 years, and does not feel the current plat is suitable for living space for children without supervision. PUD gives lots more space and the addition to the comer would still not alleviate the problem. ❑ Ms. Harrington addressed the committee concerning the minutes of the previous meeting. She stated if the committee had read the minutes they would have known the minutes were very hard to follow. She stated she had requested a copy of the minutes on various occasions and when she was furnished with a copy, within two days she had asked for a copy of the tape, only to fmd out it had been erased. Therefore, for the record she was requesting a copy of the tape and would prepare a transcript for her files. ❑ Ms. Hoffman stated that at the last meeting their item was tabled, and therefore, the minutes should have reflected no actions, and there were no directives except for staff to get with the applicant and answer the questions needed for this meeting. ❑ Mr. Moore did state he was well aware of what actions he was to take according to the last meeting. Mr. Ward stated there was very high density north and south of Serenity Place on the east side with no park area. Mr. Ward further stated removing six lots north of Serenity around the cul-de-sac which might alleviate the high density. He further stated he was not sure the adjoining land had much to do with Lots No 60 or 50. He stated this was just a suggestion for their consideration. He stated most PUDS give common areas which give you a feeling of less density, and stated he had no problem with number of lots, but just wanted to make a suggestion for their • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes April 30, 1998 Page -17- consideration. ❑ Ms. Hoffman stated Commissioner Ward has given them a suggestion to help them, and felt the applicant may have a difficult time getting this item passed. ❑ Ms. Hoffman stated when Rupple Road was built and the 5 acres of property was separate consideration would have to be given whether this project met the spirit of the PUD ordinance. Ms. Johnson moved to forward the project to Planning Commission. Mr. Ward seconded said motion as stated. The motion carried with a vote of 3-0-0. Subdivision Committee Minutes April30, 1998 Page -18- PP 98-2.00: PRELIMINARY PLAT (EASTON PARK SUBDIVISION) This project was submitted by Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Easton Development for property located north of Hwy 45 and east of Blue Mesa Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Low -Density Residential and contains approximately 76.72 acres; 169 lots are proposed. Findings: This is a subdivision located east of the Timberline Subdivision on the north side of Hwy 45. Township Road will be extended to this development to provide an access to the west. A bill of assurance which was offered when this property was annexed and rezoned includes the construction of Township Rd. It also states that the min. house size will be 2000 s.f. and that the development shall not exceed 169 Lots. Recommendation: Consideration of this project based on staff findings. If the Subdivision Committee chooses to approve this project, staff recommends the following conditions of approval: Conditions of Approval 1. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - AR Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, TCA Cable) 2. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 3. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) 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. 4. Payment of parks fees and dedication of land as determined by the Parks Division and City Council - this applicant has proposed the dedication of a 2.48 acre parcel and the payment of parks fees for the remainder of the required dedication. This request must be approved by the City Council as there are more than 100 lots in the development. 5. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards and as noted in the sidewalk chart provided on the preliminary plat to include sidewalks extending to the property line at the east end of Township (this extension needs to be shown as requested at Plat Review). 6. Preliminary Plat approval to be valid for one calendar year. 7. Lots 1 and 160 currently show detention ponds. If these ponds are constructed, a note must be added to the plat that these are not saleable lots. 8. A letter from SWEPCO is required indicating that they accept the placement of a detention pond within the SWEPCO easement which runs along the western property line of this subdivision. Any conditions on the placement of this pond imposed by SWEPCO shall be a part of the conditions of approval for this project. 9. The legal description shown on this plat still does not match the property description of the previously approved annexation and rezoning - see attached exhibit. 10. The capacity of the lift station at Timbercrest required further evaluation by the developer's engineer. Any additional upgrades due to this proposed development shall be at the developer's sole expense. 11. The layout is subject to change depending upon the grading plan and drainage report. Staff comments: 1. There are two park land areas provided with one area consisting of 2.12 acre pond which had been revisited by the parks board and requesting a fee of $250. Since this development would be over 100 lots this project would go before the City Council meeting. 2. The area 2.1 acres would remain as open space to be maintained by property owners. 3. Lots #1 and #160 do have detention ponds shown on them and the plat would need to state if ponds are • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes April 30, 1998 Page -19- constructed these lots would not be able to be built upon. This condition would follow all the way through final plat. O Because it had a lot number and it was not on the final plat and it should reflect it on the plat to alleviate confusion. Ms. Little stated the plat would need to reflect this lot is not for residential construction. 5. Have a letter from SWEPCO on west property line whether detention ponds hold water could be constructed within the utility easement. The letter has severl condition such as no water detention structure could be within a 30' radius of existing power, and this could be taken care of at staff level. 6. Mr. Beavers stated he had only received a letter regarding the utilitiesl0 minutes ago and developer can only use the eastern 10 feet of easement and may have to work with them on the outlet. ❑ The applicant stated the outlet could be shifted to the east to allow for this. 7. The legal description on plat still does not meet the description of annexed and rezoned ordinance. ❑ The applicant stated they had dedicated additional footage on the highway, and they had gave more property on Hwy 45 for 50 foot right-of-way. The applicant would also review the legal description. 8. Mr. Rutherford stated everything had been corrected except for Lot 169 and Lot 149 where sidewalks need to be shown going all the way to the cul-de-sac. ❑ There was a question regarding the need for cul-de-sac requirement with solid waste. The developer stated they had verified their plans with the solid waste department and have widened the cul-de-sac to allow for trash pickup. ❑ The applicant stated concerning the requirement for access easement to the park and due to the reason they do not have The first two phases would be constructed first along with extension of Township, which was part of their bill of assurance per condition of annexation. Township would be an off-site assessment and constructed as part of Phase I. Subdivision Committee would be taking action on all phases as along as substantial completion within one year then they would have to come back before the Planning Commission. It was noted Planning Commission would approve all four phases, and construction of all four phases would have be started within a year. O Any improvement would need to be reflected on the vicinty map to include all MSP and streets and subdivisions streets. Mr. Conklin stated Lot 199 was dimensioned and would need to revise to 90 feet because it does. not scale correctly and applicant said he would review the plat and dimensions. Good access to this subdivision stub out to the Ozark land Trust property, what the legal ramifications would be land trust are to preserve land. Comment to Planning Commission if you see Ozark Legal Land Trust. Ms. Little stated she was reasonably sure they would not develop and does not recommend stub out. Public: • Subdivision Committee Minutes April 30, 1998 Page -20- Jim Stockland, of Savannah Phase I1, Lot 4, addressed the Subdivision committee. He stated the City approved a drainage plan that allowed city to drain water from 8-10 lots down his property line into the back 1/3 of property. He stated when it rains there was currently nothing set up for drainage and detention pond on the northwest side of property. He noted if Phase I, II and II1 emptied into 100 foot easement would make it worse for his. Mr. Beavers stated he has been working with developer, Mr. Jorgensen, and Mr. Trumbo and they were attempting to improve the drainage all the way to Brookbury. Tom Henley, with Jorgensen, stated he intended to lead a pipe to the discharge into open drainage ditch. There is a swale between two lots and would have to be improved to Idlewood. Not a change in direction of flow - shifting drainage part. Mr. Beavers stated concerning ponds in the northwest would be bigger than what is shown and will be whatever size and Planning Commission make requirement to improve to the creek and pipe to swale and want to creek. And public stated no natural water flow until Savannah was put in. The only natural creek has been washed out. It gets almost to the 100 foot easement. The pond would hopefully keep condition as possible. These downstream improvements problem with pipe and have discussed with developers. Public stated basically would not happen. With the snakes, mosquitoes and when purchased 1.5 and not told 1/3 would be flooded and trying to fix and trying to get a guarantee and wants to prevent future. Make channel improvements to the creek it was questioned who and how determines the flow of water. Detail with Mr. Beavers and new developers cannot fix other subdivisions and would be aware of this at the meeting. • Jeannie Hill, of Lot 8, stated the northern Lots 14 and 15 and use capture the water to divert the creek. She stated she would not want to stop the drainage since she prefers to have the creek on her property. • Karen Post wanted clarification for Lot 21 regarding the stub out. Ms. Little stated the purpose for the stub out was to contemplate for future connection to the north. Manny Terminella, who owns 6 acres west of the development, stated he was having increased runoff making its way to Mud Creek. This runoff was made worse with the development of the Harps complex and Mcllroy Bank. Mr. Terminella further stated for the past 8 years Park Place it had been up to him to maintain and would like to see upgrade and maintenance be delegated to someone else. He has existing easements and right-of-way at Thornburys. Ms. Little stated Mr. Terminella would need to address a letter to public works, Kevin Crosson, and state his concerns but that this developer could be held responsible for the previous developments and issues. Mr. Terminella stated if a connection of 200 feet were made then nobody would have to cross over this bridge. He stated the flow after 15 years and consider expert of flow and increases and has been going on. Additional runoff with - post -development should not be with peak rates. Glenwood subdivision stated they did not need. Mr. Beavers stated drainage is precise and according to peak rates and drainage, sometimes this allows for imprecise calculations. He stated the City would continue to upgrade drainage issue. Joshua Brown, adjacent property owner, they own 30 acres close to the property line , and this property has a pond which is about 1.5 and is 15 feet deep and bank is against property line to Lots 133 and 132. He stated he did not feel it wise to build a house there due to the pond. One engineer might say no problem and the engineer had told them Subdivision Committee Minutes April 30, 1998 Page -21- they would not put houses there. lust another questions. Mr. Brown stated this was an earth dam but no spillway built into it. ❑ Mr. Beavers stated the requirement for a house next to a pond would be 100 feet. Impact requirements contemplated a house wold be built and developer would need to deal with. Mr. Brown stated he was supportive and cooperative of this development but felt there was concern regarding a potential problem and liability regarding the pond on the adjaceent property. It was noted the current status near Lots 78, 79, 22 in Savannah are under water. The developer was currently routing under her house and basically doing to expense and rerouting down property line across the street and also laying in a sewer line to eliminate the need for a pump. It would serve 25 lots. Raincatchers would be placed in Savannah in order to help with the drainage. Existing pond west of Ms. Pour's property, routed into pond or captured and Terminella stated he did not want it in his pond because his water is pure and natural and wants to keep it as such. Rather put swale in east side and in pond 1. ❑ Ms. Hoffman stated due to theTownship extension the developer would be required to pay 100% of building and requests a guarantee that affect. It was noted Easton Park Blvd. would be built in Phase I and won't be complete until Phase III, and the construction road would not be a public right-of-way. It was noted as part of the requirement, that Lot 101 in Phase I would be required as part of completion. Right-of-way of cul-de-sac get with solid waste and determine. Street stubbed to north and where location should be and proposed lot splits. Beavers - Drainage trough Timbercrest and bypass and existing 15" pipe and intended on doing will go to the west on Lot 1 and swales on north and east side will be lined with continuous swale. When encouraged to drainage for problems not for existing problems. Question of fairness. Chuck - all sidewalk built to city lot standards which would require inspection. Ms. Hoffman moved to forward to Planning Commission. Mr. Ward seconded said motion as stated. Said motion carried on a vote of 3-0-0. Dismissed at 12:27 p.m.