Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-12-31 - Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, December 31, 1998 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building located at 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS DISCUSSED ACTION TAKEN PP98-13: CMN Business Park II, Ph II pp173, 174 Forwarded to Planning Commission LS98-43, 44, 45: Duggan, pp 137 Approved LSD98-36: WRMC pp 250, 211 Forwarded to Planning Commission COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT COMMITTEE MEMBER ABSENT Lorel Hoffman Phyllis Hall Johnson John Forney Lee Ward STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Jim Beavers Kim Hesse Janet Johns Alett Little Ron Petrie Kim Rogers Brent Vinson Dawn Warrick • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes December 31, 1998 Page 2 PP98-12: PRELIMINARY PLAT CMN BUSINESS PARK II, PH II PP 173,174 The first item on the agenda was the preliminary plat for CMN Business Park 11, Phase II submitted by Mel Milholland of Milholland Engineering on behalf of CMN Properties for property located south and west of the Northwest Arkansas Mall. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and R -O, Residential Office, and contains approximately 78.28 acres with 7 lots proposed. Mel Milholland and Guy Washburn, were present on behalf of the project along with attorney Micki Harrington and realtor Brian Shaw. STAFF COMMENTS Little: We will not be issuing building permits until such time that a design theme has been approved by staff and forwarded to the Commission. This does not affect this plat at this level. General comments on sidewalks are that they will conform to current standards with the exception of Shiloh Drive. We are expecting sidewalks on Shiloh Drive to be on the north side and this is correctly shown on this plat. The reason for that is there is no development on the south side of Shiloh Drive other than the bypass and it is not reasonable to require sidewalks. We have Master Street Plan issues to talk about. All of the rights of way that are shown are in accordance with the Master Street Plan. The Master Street Plan has been added to the vicinity map along with the flood plan reference which was requested at plat review. We need to talk about that fly over connection which is the area which would have provided a loop back to the interstate or to Van Asche and whether the connection to Shiloh Drive will eventually connect with Joyce Boulevard and the connection of Van Asche to Mall Boulevard. Off site improvements in Phase I were 55% of $135,000 to $140,000. Phase II is 25% of $135,000 to $140,000. Those off site improvement are to pay for a bridge in Johnson and for the proportionate share of their improvements to Gregg Street to the east. We are looking at additional lots which will require the connection of Shiloh Drive since Shiloh Drive in Phase I for Lot 7 was dedicated as right of way, at Phase II we required a note to be added to the plat before you that the construction of Shiloh Drive will be completed prior to sale of the lot in the easternmost area. With Phase 11, Mall Avenue will be connected to the north from Spring Park subdivision. This will require a bridge across Mud Creek and the construction of the bridge is 100% at the cost of the developer. We have discussed trail connections and for the purposes of this plat we have asked for the trail to be designated along the south side of the creek on Lot 17 and along the north side of the creek on Lot 12. Discussion was that the trail would have to cross under the bridge or go over the bridge at Mud Creek. This has not been worked out. The trail coordinator should comment on that due to his concerns with the steepness of the terrain. This was designated so that when the lots were sold the person purchasing the lot would be aware of • • Subdivision Committee Minutes December 31, 1998 Page 3 the designated trail. Milholland: An alternate route would involve constructing a direct walk bridge across Lot 17 to Lot 18. There would bridge construction involved. (Please refer to plat review minutes for detailed discussion.) Petrie: The developer is proposing a 36 feet wide streets at all locations except for the portion across the bridge which they propose to be 28 feet wide. Mall Avenue is currently 33 feet wide Milholland: The minimum dimension we surveyed was 31.8. Beavers: We need to be consist. You're going to have left turns into Lot 12 and 18 and it needs to be 36 feet throughout the development. Johnson: Are there any sidewalk issues? Little: We have discussed it and Chuck Rutherford is in accordance with not putting any sidewalks on the south side of Shiloh Drive since it doesn't serve any businesses. Hoffman: It could have a bus stop area. That would be fine with me. Little: As far as the location of the trail, we don't how we're going to get across the creek and that's what Mel was alluding to. We have not done the detailed studies on that though we had asked for a note to be added... "The trail location is to be shown on Phase 11 plan with a note stating the trails location is to be subject to it's functionality; therefore, the trail crossing may or may not be at Mall Avenue.' Chuck Rutherford wants to leave it open so that if it needs to be engineered differently, we would have that option. He had talked about the Trails Committee building a separate bridge just for the trail to cross before it got to the ravine area. Our discussion was we weren't sure how reasonable that would be for trails to have to build a separate bridge. Johnson: That would be done at the expense of the Trail's Committee. Little: Right. Hoffman: Have they taken advantage of the grant that was available through the University • to beautify the trail? • Subdivision Committee Minutes December 31, 1998 Page 4 Milholland: It was not for beautification. It was for educational purposes. It's not just for this area it was for the whole city. Hoffman: Was it erosion control? Milholland: Yes. It was in the neighborhood of $40,000 to $50,000. Little: Do you know who you talked to on that? Milholland: I have it in my records. Johns: I'll follow up on that. Little: We might could have them come to Planning Commission and give us a presentation on what they're doing out there. Hoffman: I'd like to see a copy of that. If there's money available to beautify the creek as a result of this development, I think we should take advantage of it. • Little: One of the questions we need to ask is if it is limited to residential uses or may it be extended to commercial uses. We might could get some grass features or walls or benches. • Hesse: Tree preservation was submitted and I will work with them at large scale development and final grading. This is just a pasture land. When we get to individual large scale that's what really affects trees. Public Comment No one was present to comment on this project. Further Commission Discussion Johnson: Regarding the vicinity map, it appears that Shiloh is continuous all the way up to Joyce and shown on the vicinity map. Is that correct? Milholland: That's the Master Street Plan. It currently goes through Wal-Mart parking lot. Little: It shows Shiloh continuous up to Joyce. The original plan was for Shiloh to go over and make that crossing. We have in effect moved that over to Mall Lane. It is different. The western most has become Steele. There will be nothing else to the east. • Subdivision Committee Minutes December 31, 1998 Page 5 Milholland: The proposed flyover ties in to where Van Asche crosses the creek. Little: The flyover is needed so that the people that are headed north on College do not have to take the Joyce intersection, make the U turn and come back to the south. The affect of not having the flyover and the affect of the development in this area is that some of them will filter through the development. They will use Joyce to go to Gregg Street. The flyover would take up most of the land that is designated for Lot 17. The decision that we are making today or would be making at Planning Commission is the future of the connections in that area. The flyover is going to be a multi-million dollar project. The Highway Department has done some alignments on it but they have written us a letter that said they don't think that it is needed and they don't have any plans to construct it. (Please see copy of letter dated August 29, 1995, on file in Planning Office.) Mr. Venable commented on the letter that as of 12/28/98 AHTD has no plans to construct the flyover and so there's no need for it. Johnson: Certainly this would be desirable when Van Asche is built. Do we have sense of when Van Asche might be constructed? Little: Not within the next five years. I don't see that we can take any other position on • the flyover. I wish we had more support because it would be a good solution but without their support, the City can not stand alone and say that it needs to be done. • Johnson: Does Mr. Peters have any information for us. Peters: I think the flyover is a wonderful idea. However, in it's absence they more likely will be using Joyce Street and Gregg for connection. During pm peak hours 75 vehicles traversed every minute. According to the Highway Department that is not a very high priority need. Little: There was a person from the Highway Department that did a year long graduate degree at the University. His name was Scott Bennett and we worked with Bob Alguire. His traffic count showed that there were adequate numbers of cars to justify the fly over but the project never went anywhere and I don't have access to that information. Perry Franklin reminded me of that. Johnson: Do we need to look at this more carefully or is there consensus that for reasons of economics and the State Highway Department's position that this may not come to fruition? Little: We need to discuss the trade offs that are going to be necessary to accommodate the traffic that will now filter through because there won't be a flyover. The developer needs to realize that by not taking that land up with that flyover, they stand to benefit. Since they benefit by giving a lot for development, we hope they can be helpful in other traffic issues. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes December 31, 1998 Page 6 Hoffman: I would suggest for future planning, should be show a proposed right of way connection for the flyover in case it becomes feasible to build the flyover. Little: That's called corridor preservation. I think that's a good idea, but the developer would not approve of that because they plan on using that lot. Hoffman: Could Mr. Peter's show us the approximate amount of land that a flyover would require? Peters: There are a couple of design issues. The property has to go up and then back down. There would have to be an embankment which requires a lot of land. I would not be surprised if that took 125 to 150 feet in width in that area Milholland: I don't know if you have enough distance to get back using highway grade on that lot. Hoffman: So we could position the city into never having a flyover there because there would be a building in the way. Beavers: The City could purchase that lot if we could figure out a way to do that. Johnson: Will Lot 17 as platted be adequate for a flyover? Little- Lot 17 would probably be adequate but it would take the whole thing. Milholland: The grade to where you could actually get back down is a key thing. Johnson: Would a flyover connect to Van Asche instead of Shiloh or would it connect to both? Little: Shiloh. It would connect to Van Asche but there would be an off ramp back down to Beavers: Highway 71 had an off ramp to the west of Shiloh. You could design it to be whatever it needed to be. Peters: If the demand is mostly to get back to 71 and the bypass, locating it adjacent to the right of way of the existing highway right of way which might make more sense that to reserve through the middle of this development. The another design issue would be whether or not it would be feasible to connect with Van Asche. • • Subdivision Committee Minutes December 31, 1998 Page 7 Milholland: Mr. Venable and I discussed this last week and his consensus was that it would be too high area. Little: The alignments reviewed required that the fly over be located on the west side of Highway 71 because we have already allowed building to be built on the east. Johnson: Who other than Mr. Venable, the Mayor, and the Council would take leadership roles? Beavers: I think it would be the new Council. Johnson: What about informing Mr. Venable about our discussion today and asking him to come to our agenda session? Little: I believe, Mr. Venable agrees with the Highway Department that there is no need and it cost so much that we would never be ablc tc get it. Hoffman: Would the Street Committee take up ideas like this? Little: They have done more in recent months. They haven't made the new committee appointments. Hoffman: I can't approve the entire preliminary plat. I would leave out Lot 17 until further study. I think it is a really important issue and I would like to make sure that there is a consensus before moving forward. I have other questions about the trail. Milholland: A large scale on Lot 17 would have to come back. Hoffman: By granting a lot there we are assuming a building could be built on it. Little: The preliminary plat allows the initiation of construction for all the streets. Johnson: There is a major impact on Van Asche and Shiloh. Little: The grade could affect Van Asche and the connection to Van Asche. Beavers: Do you have the same agreement on this phase as the other in that you sell lot and people can actually develop the property before the final plat? Milholland: The zoning was for the whole property. Our purpose in coming forward with • phase 11 now is we have interested buyers in areas within this phase. Lot 7 and Lot 15 is one • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes December 31, 1998 Page 8 developer and this Lot 16 is one and Lot 17 is one development, too. Hoffman: It would be extremely helpful to see a master plan of the development to see what you've got on paper and how it relates to the streets and trails. Milholland: I'm not the developer. The realtors have people interested in purchasing this. It is in the negotiating stage. It's not designed. Hoffman: We're looking toward a unified development concept. I am very interested in how this is going to orient toward the creek as a natural feature. As a Planning Commission, I feel it is our responsibility to encourage the highest level of development and aesthetics for parking lot and lay outs as possible. I want to make sure that we are aware as we go forward with the preliminary plat that we are not boxing ourselves into a position of having a creek behind some buildings where the loading docks are. Big parking lots in the fronts facing the streets is just a mediocre development. Milholland: We're not here as a developer for individual tracts We are here to create a development where they can develop something like that. Johnson. Milholland: zoning. Little: Is the lot line between Lot 17 and 18 in the middle of the creek? It follows the zoning line. Lot 17 is zoned C-2. The plat has a table reflecting the On the Master Street Plan you had asked if Mr. Venable could advise you. Johnson: If anybody in staff feels the flyover could be considered, I would like for Mr. Venable to provide us information and a better forum for that would be agenda session. If at that stage we don't need to talk about it at the full meeting and we would not need Mr. Venable to be there. Little: I don't want to speak for Mr. Venable but it is my feeling that he concurs with the Highway Department's assessment that it would be economically unfeasible to construct. I will convey the discussion and offer him the opportunity to come to the agenda session or the Planning Commission. Johnson: I suggest that you visit with the present chairman of the Street Committee. Little: There is no present chairman. There is a meeting on January 5 and at that time, I will check and see who the chairman will be. • Subdivision Committee Minutes December 31, 1998 Page 9 Johnson: I think maybe it might be a good idea to have both the past chairman and the to be appointed chairman together when you have this discussion to help fill in the background. Beavers: What do you think the right of way for the flyover would cost the City? Milholland: We budgeted in the overall program for a lot for sale to make this feasible. Shaw: Land normally sells for $6.00 per square foot. Hoffman: I Just feel the City Council should have the heads up on it and if there is no consensus that this is feasible then we'll build a building. (Mr. Milholland excused himself 9:30 a.m.) Johnson: Is the Shiloh Drive right of way taken care of? Little: The case was with Shiloh Drive in Phase I, we only received right of way so if they are now intending for us to approve Phase II, we are requiring that Shiloh Drive be constructed. Lot 7 is not developed that it will have to constructed as a part of Phase II in order for the connections to be made. Washburn. That is included in Note 21. Is that satisfactory? Little: Yes. Hoffman: I feel like the trail needs to located fairly soon. The idea of construction after the grading of the lots and pushing it around seems to be an inefficient way to do it. How soon can we get the trail planned. Hesse: I spoke to Mel Milholland and he stated that after Garver & Garver did their initial grading, they would stake out the boundaries for the trail. Beavers: Have they selected Garver & Garver to design the bridge? Washburn: Mel has been dealing with them. I couldn't tell. Harrington: I don't think specifically under contract. Beavers: We agreed that we would have a say so in selecting the engineer for the bridge. Harrington: We thought you recommended them. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes December 31, 1998 Page 10 Beavers: No. One the conditions of the approval was that the City would be a part of the selection process. If you're working the Garver & Garver it may be at your own expense. Mel needs to bring in the information for the engineer to be considered for the bridge and the boulevard. Little: We discussed that at plat review. (Please refer to the Minutes of a Meeting of Technical Plat Review dated December 17, 1998 beginning at Page 18.) Washburn: I not sure they provided an estimate of what their fee would be. It in a preliminary discussion regarding the concept and what the agreement would be. Little: We would like to have that information by agenda session. Is that a reasonable time for everybody? Beavers: No. This is clear up from Phase I that hasn't been provided The City Council has spread the money out over a period of time for the construction on Steele. Little: The street has $300,000 right now. The bridge has $400,000 but it may not be 1999 money. MOTION Ms. Hoffman made a motion to forward the preliminary plat to the full Commission subject to the above referenced revision. Mr. Ward seconded. Little: We will need 37 revised copies on Thursday, January 7, 1999. • • Subdivision Committee Minutes December 31, 1998 Page 11 LS98-43, 44, 45: LOT SPLITS DUGGAN, PP 137 The next item on the agenda were the lot split requests submitted by Terrence Duggan for property located at Lot 13 of the Missouri Oaks Subdivision. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential, and contains approximately 1.21 acres. The request is to split the property into 4 tracts of 0.47 acres, 0 28 acres, 0 24 acres and 0.22 acres, respectively. Mr. Kurt Jones and Terrence Duggan were present on behalf of the project. Committee Discussion Little: This can be approved by the Subdivision Committee. It will require construction of sidewalks along Cinnamon Way. We had asked for those to be shown and they are not on the plat. I would not delay him for not showing that but we do need it to be very clear in the record that we are expecting sidewalk construction on Cinnamon Way. We are not expecting sidewalk construction on Zion Road. The reason is the current owner of all the property has provided us a bond which guarantees those. We have the money for these in escrow. Johnson: It there a time limit on the existing bond that the City has? Little: Usually, yes. On this particular one there is not. This is one that went into receivership and we had to take the money in order for them to sell lots All the other requirements asked for at Plat Review were shown. I do have a question and you were going to look at this. There was a line hanging down very low at the entrance to the subdivision. Have you had a chance to look at it? Duggan: I have looked at it and it has been raised. Hoffman: Have these been constructed? Are they a garden home kind of deal? Jones: No. They will be zero lot lines and the reason we showed those is because we had to place them to get the lot lines. Little: We had asked them to consider some shared drive ways. They've done one drive way for 13-D and then a shared drive way for units 13-C and 13-B and then a separate drive way for 13-A. I just want to put you on notice but the drive way for 13-A must be located 5 feet off the property line. We will not sign off on a building permit and it's all done in the drainage easement anyway. • Johnson: 13-A does not allow any accept to Zion Rd.? • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes December 31, 1998 Page 12 Jones: No. We were asking for three drives. The final configuration may vary when we get to drawings but we're planning on 13-C and 13-B having a shared drive. And 13-A and I3 -D would have their own drives. We simply configured the buildings on this plan to get the lot lines worked out and left the information on so that you could see it. This is not a development plan we are presenting. Johnson: What density are we going to have in these buildings? Jones: There will be four single family units. Johnson: And the lot configurations meet the requirements of the ordinance? Little: Yes, as far as lot size and set backs. The reason it tolerates these is because of the length of these lots. All of this is used into the density calculation. When the plat was approved this lot 13 was approved for four units, so it would require replat in order to do something other than this. Petrie: Engineering will require an overall grading plan and drainage study before issuance of a building permit. Duggan: Is that typical? Petrie: Yes. We are requiring drainage plans on all subdivisions. Jones: There is some storm drainage that runs back up through there. There's not a creek. Petrie: We need calculations on a 100 year storm to determine if there needs to be some kind of overflow swale even if that easement is on top of those pipes. We will need to know that and set these structural elevations high enough that it won't flood. Jones: There's no flood plain there. Petrie: There's not a flood plain but there is flow in there. Jones: That typically is not required on a residential lot. Petrie: The drainage would be required on any lot or any lot split that creates a lot. Jones: This lot was not included in the original subdivision? • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes December 31, 1998 Page 13 Little: It predated the grading ordinance that these lot splits are subject to. MOTION Mr. Ward made a motion to approve the lot splits subject to the sidewalk construction and the grading and drainage plan being provided. Ms. Hoffman seconded the motion. Ms. Johnson concurred. • Subdivision Committee Minutes December 31, 1998 Page 14 LSD98-36: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT WASHINGTON REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, PP 250, 211 The final item on the agenda was the large scale development submitted by Kurt Jones of Crafton, Tull, and Associates on behalf of Washington Regional Medical Center for property located north of Appleby Road and west of Northhills Boulevard. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural; C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial; and R -O, Residential Office, and contains approximately 45.47 acres. Mr. Kurt Jones and Jim Tenpenny were present on behalf of the project. Committee Discussion Jones: I am passing around a preliminary landscape plan. Tenpenny: This illustrates the parking and issues we discussed last time. Little: They proposed a rezoning on this property as well as a conditional use which will • be presented to the Planning Commission before you hear this one. We asked for additional drainage information. Particularly we discussed an under drain to be provided from the landscape median. The tree preservation plan required specific work. Trees are now shown for proposed preservation. Jones: We're saving everything outside the construction limits. Within the construction limits we're proposing to save several trees through the use of retaining walls. Little: We did ask for the landscape plan. Hesse: They have a general plan but nothing as far as a detailed plan around the building. Tenpenny: We will submit that as we develop the facilities. Jones: The tree preservation is shown on the large scale but it's not clear because of all the information on it. Hoffman: If there is a great tree in the middle of the parking lot then that will be removed? Jones: Anything outside the parking lot there should have protective fencing shown. We'll try and make that more clear. • Hesse: There's a lot of work that goes on before final grading and we handle that with Subdivision Committee Minutes December 31, 1998 Page 15 engineering. We just talked about that before this meeting. Jones: There will be actual landscape plans that will be prepared on this project by the landscape architect. At this level that has not been done, yet. Little: That's fine. Jones: This is a tree preservation plan. Hoffman: This is pasture land. Jones: We did locate all the trees and they are noted on the plan. Hesse: This is basically a draft at this point that they turned in and we will look at that more closely because it is a Targe tract. I'll be there at the Planning Commission if there are issues that come up. Tenpenny: There is a landmark tree and it's a high priority for us to save it and there are some elms along the western boundary as well. Hoffman: And those aren't going to die? Hesse: That is an American Elm and I have been out with an arborist and Forestry Commission and they all feel that it is very healthy. American Elms are better at handling some root loss so we'll have to work with that. Little: We have a smaller landscape plan. It's not matching the big drawings. There should be trees all along Northhills Boulevard on this property. Jones: There are already trees there. Little: So you didn't show them because they are existing. Jones: We may have to adjust the sidewalk some to avoid those trees. Little: I'm sure we can work with you on that. There should be landscaping on the other side of Northhills Boulevard. Jones: So you want trees on the east side Vinson: Are the trees going to be on the outside of the sidewalk? • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes December 31, 1998 Page 16 Jones: Those trees will probably have to be between the curb and the sidewalk in order to meet the green space requirements. We'll probably have to weave the sidewalk outside those trees. We'll look at that and go over it with Chuck Rutherford. Little: We need trees along Appleby Road which are not shown. We could leave out that portion where you have the existing development. Jones: What is the requirement on that for trees? Hesse: For commercial it is still one per 30 feet. Jones: And that is 30 feet of street frontage. Little: We had asked that the Highway Department be contacted to decide if a sidewalk would be placed along Futrall and we also talked about Appleby Road and whether or not it was meeting standards. Perry has said that an agreerr..,..t was needed regarding street lights. What we discussed there was that existing lights are a certain type and if they are to be continued then an agreement is going to be needed that the hospital will own and maintain those street lights. We had also asked for a parking lighting plan. We need to discuss the status of that. Jones: ADA parking spaces are labeled with arrows. Little: You did add the boundary of the overlay district and labeled it in the vicinity map. We had discussion about overhead electric lines. Currently there is an overhead electric line coming in along the south side of the project. Jones: We have the power poles showing along Appleby north of Paul Martin. Little- The electric company has requested that it be left overhead to the power pole and they would take it underground from there. Jones: SWEPCO requested that due to the terrain. Little: We need to discuss the size of the water main. It was recommended for 8 inch but they are showing a 6 inch and we talked about sprinklering. There is also a 2 inch water line that is to be abandoned that goes over to the Appleby house. We talked about needing an additional fire hydrant. We will need an easement plat prior to a building permit. We have the note regarding the parking lot lighting. A left turning lane is to be provided onto Northhills Boulevard into the main entrance which has not been shown. We had asked for more detailed information on the color and materials of the roof and building. • • Subdivision Committee Minutes December 31, 1998 Page 17 Tenpenny: That will be developed. We won't do anything that's not complementary to the area. Little: Explain from the "marker colored" drawing what the building colors and materials are now. Tenpenny: The patient tower is the center building. It is three floors which we have future plans to add one additional floor. We do not have material samples for the mock up. We will compliment the existing areas and tie in the materials. Little: When do you think you'll have that information? Tenpenny: As soon as we get approval from the City, I'm going to be asking the Board Members for a professional to be approved to begin work. Littl : Our Commercial Design Standards normally --squire that the materials be spelled out and specified and that the building be built to that. We get samples of roof materials and those types of things. Tenpenny: Are you looking for types? Little: Colors and materials. Johnson: What we usually require is a material board that shows us exactly. Tenpenny: I can give you material types but as far as specific colors - Little: It says metal roof. Hoffman: Are you going to do a blue-green or a green -green? Tenpenny: Yes. This is pretty far down the road and I can't guarantee that the exact colors will be available. Johnson: Because of Commercial Design Standards we have been having to be pretty specific about colors. Jones: The colors will be as depicted on the drawings. Tenpenny: The final plans will come in with the building permit and my understanding is at • that time you go back and compare it to what was submitted at this time. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes December 31, 1998 Page 18 Little: We have to know what they approved in order to check it. Tenpenny: At this time, this is what we are proposing. Hoffman: Get a representative sample of what you might want to go with and I'm sure that a revision can be discussed later. Tenpenny: It's going to be 18 months minimum to find some of the material. Jones: The drawing shows the color. Tenpenny: If you require me to provide you with the material, I will have a little difficulty with that at this time. Ward: So you're just going to name the color at this time. Little: Your elevation drawing doesn't look like it has the same facade to me as the color rendering. Which is more accurate? Jones: not. They are the same. The color rendering is three dimensional and the elevation is Tenpenny: In the elevation you will not see depth. In the color rendering you will. These are the same shot. Little: The rooftop shouldn't be angling up like that. Is that a rectangular roof or is it a trapezoid roof. Tenpenny: It does have some slope going down but we have not discussed that in detail. Little: The number of columns aren't matching either. Which one can we depend on? Jones: The elevation is the most up to date one. It was prepared for the Washington Regional Board. Johnson: If the building looks like the elevation, then I can perceive that you might have some Commercial Design Standard problems It looks like boxes side by side. Tenpenny: We will be happy to address the perspective at the Planning Commission meeting. It's easy to read. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes December 31, 1998 Page 19 Hoffman: You should bring that and provide some explanation of how the entrance is going to be. My preference is for actual brick samples and materials. Tenpenny: I understand your concerns but if I provide material samples I may not be able to match that in 12 months. I will name materials and colors. Hoffman: The Planning Commission packet will need a list of materials and colors and we need to know if you are going to have a trapezoid roof. Be as specific as you can get. Little: You have a front street, Northhills, that goes in front of the complex and the elevated view is probably as seen from Fulbright Expressway. That is confusing. Are there vents in between the windows or are they all windows. Tenpenny: You're seeing vents that are back behind on the roof. They are operable windows because there is a state requirement for hospitals to have operable windows. They are windows. They are not vents. Little: well. The colors are slightly different and that makes a difference in the elevation as Jones: One was done in pencil and the other was done in marker. Little: That goes back to what we're talking about with the colors. One looks to be beige and the other looks to be orange. Johnson: I feel that if the Commission sees what we're seeing, we won't have done our work as a Subdivision Committee. We don't have as much information from you as we typically have from other developers. The two drawings need to be consistent. Later, if you veer from that in material ways, we may say that it is okay. Jones: Maybe it would be better if we didn't do a perspective drawings. Hoffman: I understand that the east and south elevations will be carried on but do you have an elevation of the central plant? Jones: You won't be able to see it from grade at all. I don't know how else to address your concerns about the rectangular shape of the roof except to refer you back to the plan. Tenpenny: I can instruct the architect to have a rendering in color pencil and we'll verbally present the colors and material. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes December 31, 1998 Page 20 Johnson: I think that will help you in your process. Little: We need to talk about drainage. The completed drainage report must be submitted including pre development and post development flow computations at the south side of the Bypass for each watershed. The existing box culvert pass under the Bypass and they are to examined to determine their capacity. The final drainage design is to have a runoff coefficient that depicts a fully developed watershed to size the new drainage structure. A storm water management and erosion control permit is required and under drains are to be provided from the landscaped median. Petrie: permit. That has since been addressed. The only thing I don't have is a copy of the Jones: Typically when we do the final grading construction plans that is when we apply for the permit. We have submitted a preliminary grading and drainage plan that is required. Petrie: The fire chief required an 8 inch line looped around and it still shows a 6 inch line. He also requested another source and tie in to be provided. He requested several additional fire hydrants and I don't believe those have been shown. Jones: I believe he asked for one additional hydrant and we have not shown that yet. We understand there are some issues for the water lines as far as an additional feed but I understood those to be issues that could be resolved at the final construction plans. We have not done the waterline design at this point. Hoffman: Do you have easements located for the loop? Jones: No. Petrie: I think the fire chief is saying that he needs them. Jones: We can do a KY pipe or some other analysis of this water system and determine exactly how many feeds are needed and what's needed to serve this development and maintain fire flow. I am agreeable to any approval of this project being contingent on us doing that final design and meeting the fire chief's requirements. Hoffman: How can we possibly approve it without an easement for a water loop? Jones: We would have an easement plat in order to get a building permit anyway. Little: Easement plats do not pertain to building permits. It is typically requested and Subdivision Committee Minutes December 31, 1998 Page 21 granted at plat review. Johnson: We need to see those now. This is consistently required at this level of approval Little: We said the entire complex was to be looped with an 8 inch water main supplied from at least two sources. A 20 feet easement needs to be shown and dedicated for the proportion of the existing waterline on the Northhills right of way that is to be abandoned. The 6 inch water line along Appleby Road is to be constructed outside of the right of way with adequate easement. 20 feet is normally adequate. Jones: The comments that we were given do not say that it must be an 8 inch line or that it must have another pump connection. It said that needs to be evaluated. Petrie: My comments came from the fire chief. Little: That's why we have meetings where comments are furnished to you and we have those discussions with everyone present. Jones: I will be glad to show the 8 inch line and show it connecting if we can perform evaluation and take it off if that is not needed. Little: Comments from the fire chief stated the entire complex should be looped with an 8 inch water main being supplied from at least two sources. Hydrant spacing intervals should not exceed 600 feet. At least one additional hydrant is needed at the entrance to the south parking lot. I couldn't find a fire line entrance to any of the buildings. This entire complex will need to be fully sprinklered. An additional hydrant will need to be located to be assessable to a pumper and within 100 feet to the sprinkler system. Another additional hydrant will be needed at the rear of the main hospital building. He is asking for three hydrants. Hoffman: Are you saying we can meet requirements without a loop? Jones: design. Little: fires. I'm saying I don't know at this point and I won't know until we do the final The minimum size is a 6 inch line which has been provided. Petrie: Hoffman: I think it's at the discretion of the fire chief Whatever he thinks he needs to fight Plus an additional source. Has anybody done a flow test? • Subdivision Committee Minutes December 31, 1998 Page 22 Jones: We have information on flow test on hydrants in this area There is a lot of static pressure in this area over 150 psi. Petrie: The fire chief requested two sources. You could easily prove that you only need one source. But, this is a hospital. It is in the public's best interest to have two sources. Little: inches. This is not up for discussion. It needs to be 8 inches and should be shown as 8 Jones: As far as the other feed, it may or may not be needed for the fire flow in this development. Johnson: I think you find the Planning Commission will request what the fire chief requires without exception. Hoffman: Unless the fire chief puts it in writing that he doesn't require an additional source, we will support his request. • Little: Show your lines to be 8 inch or have a letter from the fire chief saying something else. The entire complex is to be fully sprinklered. The internal sprinkler system designer is to approve the 6 inch fire protection line size to determine adequacy. • Petrie: On the master water plan it shows a 12 inch line along Appleby. So, a decision has to be made whether the hospital will be obligated to a cost share. Little: What is there now? Petrie: A 6 inch. Little: So the city's share would be to upgrade from a 6 inch to 12 inch or from a 8 inch to a 12 inch. Petrie: Chief Jackson is requiring an 8 inch line. Little: So the City's share is from an 8 inch to a 12 inch. We will need you to provide an estimate of that so that engineering can look at that and we will know what number we are talking about. We will have to take that to City Council. Where is it being served now? Jones: Little: It is a looped line that runs up Northhills. It is a loop from Northhills to Northhills and can come from either direction. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes December 31, 1998 Page 23 Where is the third source that he wants? Petrie: We are considering these tie ins as one tie in. You're tying into the same line. There is a 12 inch along Fulbright Expressway. Little. The fire chief needs the third tie in which would actually be the second tie in although there are two tie ins on Northhills which are the same line. You will not get a building permit until Chief Jackson is satisfied. Johnson: When this comes to the Commission it needs to have the size water lines we think are needed and the location where we think we need them now. Petrie: The line that comes off Northhills close to the Monte Painter Road should be made to line up with that. Jones: Petrie: exiting? Jones: That is not a problem. At the main entrance are you proposing one way on the street entering and Yes. There will be one way in and out with a divided boulevard. Hoffman: We have two lanes coming in and two lanes coming out with a designated left turn lane? Jones: Yes. There will be two way at Monte Painter and also on Appleby. Hoffman: Appleby is how many lanes? Jones: Two. Hoffman: Was there discussion at Plat Review regarding upgrading Appleby? Petrie: Appleby Road is designated a collector street with 36 feet width. Now, it is 34 and 33 feet. Little: What is the appropriate share for this developer to pay. In the past, we have said one half of a standard city street or in cases where it was a collector, we had them add on whatever that piece was to make it up to the collector standard and reconstruct the curb. This one has a curb and it is a 31 feet street. We'll provide a staff recommendation on that. My recommendation will be that we just take an estimate of the cost to upgrade the street to collector Subdivision Committee Minutes December 31, 1998 Page 24 standard and charge a 100% of the cost to be put into escrow to upgrade Appleby. It is a 31 feet street. It needs to be a 36 feet street. That means this developer is responsible for 18 feet on their side. You are responsible for that amount of street and the curb to go along with that. You are also responsible for the sidewalk Hoffman: That is put into escrow because there is no plan to upgrade Appleby for a period of how long? Little: There are no plans to upgrade Appleby right now. Hoffman: I have a problem with assessing money for a street that is never going to be built. Little: Appleby will be built but we don't know if it will be within five years. Appleby or Drake must be built. Petrie: I propose we assess 100% because it's an off site as opposed to an on site w:-:ich would be 150%. Jones: This is a unique situation. Appleby is a 31 feet street as opposed to the standard 28 feet street and it is in good shape. You'll have three feet of brand new street and curb which is not connected to an existing 36 feet street. Little: The Planning Commission will have to decide that. It is a function of how much right of way is there and what is on the other side, too. We might just take money, but the Commission must make that decision. The other thing to remember is Northhills is going to be taken up and moved at the developers expense. That is a big construction project and the hospital is a big construction project so by the time all your trucks run Appleby Road, what is there now in good shape may not end up in good shape. It might not be a bad idea to get the street upgraded on your side. Jones: I don't know how good a street you will get if you just add on three feet of street. Hoffman: Well, if they tear up the street they have to come back and fix it. Does that ever happen? Little: Rarely because it is very difficult to get it to happen. Ward: Make that a condition of approval. Petrie: I think we should look at whether or not there should be traffic signals at Northhills and Appleby. Subdivision Committee Minutes December 31, 1998 Page 25 Hoffman: Can the traffic signal issue be brought back to us when the warrants for traffic generation are met? Tenpenny: Perry Franklin requested conduit for Northhills and Futrall. This is located on the top of a hill so it will greatly improve the site distance for Appleby and Northhills. Petrie: Was there any discussion for a three way stop at Appleby and Northhills? Little: Will that will be a directive from Mr. Franklin. There is more of a need for better traffic control at Northhills and Futrall. Staff will get with the developer and come up with a recommendation. You are aware that we are looking for your agreement on the maintenance of the street lights. We are looking for a parking light plan at building permit. The ADA spaces were labeled. The overhead electric line waiver must be discussed. Hoffman: I don't have a problem with that. Little: I have a suggestion on that. I don't see why the light pole can't be relocated to the parking lot area and have the transformer in that area. Jones: Really, that was more SWEPCO's concern than ours. The did not feel it was feasible to put the equipment there due to the terrain. Little: I don't think he has taken into consideration there is a road to it and it will be graded and there is an island that it can be placed in. This will take it away from Appleby Road. Jones: I'll be glad to talk to SWEPCO about that. Little: At any rate, you do need a waiver so we need a letter requesting that. PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. Gene Housely, residing at 2460 North Pump Station Road, who owns the trailer park property adjacent to the subject tract expressed concem regarding the drainage situation. MOTION Ms. Hoffman made a motion to forward the preliminary plat to the full Planning Commission subject to the following: 1. That the plat reflect the 8 inch looped water line, hydrants, sprinklers and a second source of water from the 12 inch line at Appleby. 6 Subdivision Committee Minutes December 31, 1998 Page 26 2. Provision of an estimate for upgrading Appleby to a 36 feet collector street. 3. That the plat reflect the relocation of Northhills Boulevard. 4. That under Commercial Design Standards there is information provided for consistency of materials. 5. That a letter be provided to the Planning Department requesting a waiver on the overhead line issue. 6. Resolution of whether or not there can be a sidewalk along Futrall. 7. Submission of a street light agreement stating that the hospital will own and maintain those lights. 8. That the Commission discussion traffic control at Northhills, Appleby, and Futrall with the traffic superintendent present at the meeting. • 9. That the plat reflect the addition of general utility easements. 10. That the landscape plan match the rendered drawing. 11. That the plat reflect a left turn land on Northhills. 12. That the plat reflect the realignment to Monte Painter. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion. Further Discussion Little: We will need 37 revised copies by 10 a.m. on Thursday, November 7, 1998. i