Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-01-14 - Minutes9• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, January 14, 1999, at 8:30 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED LS98-47: Wolfenbarger pp140 LS98-52: Benard pp717 LS98-53: Oates pp138 FP98-7: Heritage Village pp397 LSD98-37: Krauft pp290 MEMBERS PRESENT John Forney Phyllis Johnson Lee Ward STAFF PRESENT Kim Hesse Janet Johns Alett Little Ron Petrie Chuck Rutherford Kim Rogers Brent Vinson Dawn Warrick ACTION TAKEN Approved Approved w/conditions Approved w/conditions Approved w/conditions Approved MEMBERS ABSENT None STAFF ABSENT • Subdivision Committee Minutes January 14, 1999 Page 2 LS98-47: LOT SPLIT WOLFENBARGER PP140 This lot split requested was submitted by Dan Wolfenbarger for property located on Gulley Road The property is in the planning growth area and contains approximately 5.05 acres. The request is to split the property into two tracts of 4.03 acres and 1.02 acres. Dan Wolfenbarger was present on behalf of the request. Staff recommended approval subject to the following: 1. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives.) 2. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, 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. All improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements. 3. Deeds creating the new lots shall be reviewed and stamped "approved" by City Planning prior to being filed of record in the office of the Circuit Clerk. Committee Discussion Little: There are no outstanding issues to be address. We have the signed conditions from the applicant. Johnson: This is Gulley Road. Little: there? North of 45 near Oakland Zion. Mr. Wolfenbarger, could you tell us how to get Wolfenbarger. Come out at the White Oak Station. Follow Zion to the old church and cemetery and go straight instead of taking the curve north. It's probably about a mile to two miles. Forney: The only concern I was aware of for this lot split was whether the septic was entirely on this one lot. How can we determine that? Little: We had that question at Plat Review. He has revised his drawings. They had the • Subdivision Committee Minutes January 14, 1999 Page 3 fill lines and the septic tank on the drawings and it is wholly contained on this lot. Johnson: So the remaining larger tract is the "T" portion. Forney: If you get a permit to do your septic on a larger lot, how do we determine that after a lot split the septic is adequate? We need to be careful about that. Warrick: This one was approved by the County and they generally are responsible for requiring Health Department approval. Johnson: What is the condition of Gulley Road? Is it gravel or paved? Wolfenbarger: It's paved. Little: Paved, narrow, no shoulders and no gutters. Johnson: A county road? • Little: Yes. MOTION Mr. Forney made a motion to approve lot split 98-47. Mr. Ward seconded the motion Ms. Johnson concurred and stated the split was approved at this level subject to the conditions above. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes January 14, 1999 Page 4 LS98-52: LOT SPLIT BENARD (PP717) This project was submitted by Al Bernard for property located at 708 West Whillock Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately 0.47 acres. The request is to split the tract into two tracts containing 0.24 acres and 0.23 acres. Al Bernard was present on behalf of the request. Staff recommended approval subject to the follows: 1. Parks fees for two new lots (one created by conditional use for tandem lot previously granted by the Commission) $375 for each new lot for a total of $750.00. 2. Sidewalks: The terrain along the north side of Whillock Street will not allow for a continuous sidewalk at this time. When driveway approaches are constructed, the sidewalk in those location shall be constructed through the driveways. 3. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives.) Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, 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. All improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements. 5. Deeds creating the new lots shall be reviewed and stamped "approved" by City Planning prior to being file of record in the office of the Circuit Clerk. 6. The 10 feet water and sewer easement is to be labeled "private." Committee Discussion Little: You have seen this before. It was before the Planning Commission to approve a tandem lot for the larger tract behind this one. To orient you, this is where the Bypass 71 South terminates at Highway 71. This is the street that continues east. This is in the older part of town. The sides of Whillock Street drop off very steeply. For that reason, we are not requiring sidewalks or even money at this time because there is no way for sidewalk. It would require a complete overhaul. It would take City action to redo the street and we would probably put the sidewalk in at the same time. We need payment of the parks fees for the two new lots in the • Subdivision Committee Minutes January 14, 1999 Page 5 amount of $750. Petrie: We need you to label the 10 feet water and sewer easement as "private." Rutherford: The plat needs to reflect sidewalks that the driveway approach so if at some point in time, if a sidewalk is put in along there, it will be connected. Forney: Can we require that in residentially zoned property? Rutherford: Yes. Little: Since Chuck has been on board, our regulations have changed. Bernard: They put in a new water line and resurfaced this road about two months ago. Ward: Is this house on sewer then? Bernard: Yes. Johnson: When the driveway approaches are constructed, the sidewalk will be constructed through the driveways. Are you modifying that? Rutherford: No. That is our standard. Warrick: Correct me if I'm wrong. It's only for sidewalk construction through that section of the driveway which is being constructed. It's not sidewalk along the entire frontage. This is just to prevent the driveway from having to be torn out if and when sidewalks are put in along this street. Johnson: They can ascertain the location for the sidewalk section? Rutherford: We measure from the centerline of the right of way. Little: That's very important for sidewalks and driveways. You can bring driveways in at angles. Having the sidewalks set as a part of the driveway make it flat enough at that point that the sidewalks could be constructed to be level. This is important for ADA. MOTION . Mr. Ward made a motion to approve LS98-52 subject to the conditions as noted above. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes January 14, 1999 Page 6 Mr. Forney seconded the motion. Ms. Johnson concurred. • Subdivision Committee Minutes January 14, 1999 Page 7 LS98-53: LOT SPLIT OATES PP 138 This request was submitted by Rozan Oates for property located at 3061 Valerie Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately 2.83 acres. The request is to split the property into tracts of 1 acre and 1.83 acres. Rozan Oates was present on behalf of the project. Staff recommended approval of the project subject to the following conditions: Parks fees in the amount of $375.00 for the newly created lot are due prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. A sidewalk at 3061 Valerie Drive or along Hillside Terrace is not required because of the existing drainage ditch, trees and the steep terrain. 3. An individual grading plan will be required before a building permit will be issued due to the grade of the lot. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives.) Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, 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. All improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements. 6. Deeds creating the new lots shall be reviewed and stamped "approved" by City Planning prior to being file of record in the office of the Circuit Clerk. Committee Discussion Little: You have seen this tract of land before due to the rezoning request rezoning from A-1 to R-1. This has been forwarded to the City Council and it was approved at their last meeting. We are waiving the construction of sidewalks. This will be on sewer. In the past, they have not been but they will both be connected now. Petrie: The existing house is on septic. Because of the grade, it can't be done. It would need to be fed from the east. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes January 14, 1999 Page 8 Forney: I'm concerned that we're waiving sidewalk requirements for at least two lots in the City. I guess we're anticipating the City street construction will pick up these lot splits. Little: If ever. Johnson: Don't we assume that within our life time there will sidewalks throughout the City? Rutherford: The terrain prevents reasonable sidewalks. There would have to be curb and gutter put in and drainage. There are trees all the way to the drainage ditch and it sits three or four feet higher than the street. If sidewalks are required, the trees would have to be removed and the sidewalks put at that elevation. Johnson: It's just not practicable because of features on the land. Rutherford: If the situation were a street with curb and gutter then you would have something to require sidewalk. Johnson: How wide is the street and is it surfaced? Rutherford: I'm not sure. I measured the right of way. It is narrow. Warrick: It was awhile back but we drove up this in the bus when we were looking at a lot split at the end of Valerie Drive. You go to the intersection of Van and Crossover and take a hard right and then right again parallel to Crossover. It is up the hill and then down the hill. Johnson: If the street were wide enough the sidewalk wouldn't be that important. It doesn't sound as if it is but it sounds very impractical and is appropriate to be waived. Forney: 1 think it is appropriate to be waived. I want to get straight on how we treat sidewalks with lot splits. It's always going to be difficult where there is no curb and gutter to require a property owner to do a sidewalk. We're also building in added cost for the City down the road. We should be careful about making those decisions. MOTION Mr. Forney.made a motion to approve lot split 98-53 subject to all staff comments. Mr. Ward seconded the motion. Ms. Johnson concurred and the lot split was approved at this level. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes January 14, 1999 Page 9 FP98-7: FINAL PLAT HERITAGE VILLAGE, PHASE II, PP397 This project was submitted by Roger Trotter of Development Consultants Incorporation on behalf of C & B Land and Cattle Company; Inc. for property located north of Chattel Street and east of Heritage Avenue. The property is zoned R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential, and Phase II contains approximately 17.36 acres. Roger Trotter and Richard Bundrick were present on behalf of this request. Staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 2. Lot 105 is a cemetery, it is an unbuildable lot. The developer shall provide the City a letter as to how this lot will be maintained. The Protective Covenants need to reflect that the developer will maintain the cemetery Lot 105 and they will be filed in the County Deed Records. Off-site sewer assessment for this phase equals $9,400 (47 buildable lots @ $200.) The developer has stated that he will provide a letter to the City which says that all lots will be developed as single family units. If this is not the case, this assessment will have to be reconsidered based upon additional units. 3. The pump station land shall be deeded to the City by Warranty Deed. 4. Protective covenants shall be filed at the time that this final plat is filed of record. 5. Solid Waste division has stated that the alleys shall be used for trash pick up. 6. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and alt comments from utility representatives.) All items on the Engineering Division punch list shall be completed and approved prior to final plat sign -off including the completion of the sewer lift station. All improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements. Park land totaling 4.25 acres for both phases of Heritage Village has been dedicated to meet the requirement for this project. 10. The easements for sewer need to be increased from 15 feet to 20 feet. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes January 14, 1999 Page 10 11. The 4 feet green space must be labeled. 12. The sidewalk symbol shall be added to the legend. 13. The storm pipe notations are incorrect and should either be corrected or removed from the plat. Committee Discussion Little: This is the final phase of Heritage and all the streets have been constructed and we've been out to see those. The fire hydrants are in. This has 48 lots. 23 of the lots are duplex lots and there are 24 single family lots. There is also a cemetery lot which is Lot 105. Warrick: That needs to be changed on the plat. Johnson: What is a cemetery lot. Bundrick: There are six old graves there. Little: This developer does not own all of that. Bundrick: That's correct. We are going to maintain it. Little: Lot 105 is an unbuildable lot and that needs to be noted on the plat. We need a letter and an address in the covenants that the developer will maintain Lot 105. The City will not be responsible for maintaining that. We have off site sewer assessments. We calculated that on 47 buildable lots at $200 a piece so that assessment is $9,400. The developer said that he will give us a letter that says all of the lots will be developed as single family units. In other words, if one of those was developed as a duplex that sewer assessment would be different. Warrick: We will have to adjust. Mr. Bundrick told me he would choose a few of the corner lots and develop them as duplex lots. In that event, then that assessment will be adjusted based on a number of units being created. Bundrick: In phase I, I kept the garages to the rear of the house. On the bigger lots, I can use side entry garages on the corners. I could build the duplex and they would still look like single family. Little: So the understanding is, the sewer assessment is based on 47 single family lots and it may change if duplexes are built. The next thing is the pump station located on Lot 128 near the road. City Engineering has asked that particular piece of land be deeded to the City, so • • Subdivision Committee Minutes January 14, 1999 Page 11 we need a warranty deed. Johnson: This is a part of Lot 128? Little: No. We are making it a separate parcel. Part of it is on Lot 127. Forney: Will there be a structure of some sort? Bundrick: It is a pump station. I'll put a privacy fence around it and probably put a hedge around it. Little: We do have your Protective Covenants. We ask that they be filed of record at the same time the final plat is filed. We had a comment from Solid Waste that they would not pick up the trash in the alley. Dawn has had a conversation with them since then and -- Warrick: They will pick up the trash in the alleys. They are currently doing that in Phase I of Heritage and they will continue that in the alley in Phase II. I spoke with the Solid Waste Division this morning. Forney: What about connectivity? Little: I think it is too late. The original phase carne through prior to General Plan 2020. It only has one way in and out. We talked at the time about getting a street to the north. There is a huge ravine there. I won't say that it could not be extended some time in the future. There is park space there. That would mean this street would cut the park space. It is not practical at this time. There are also other lots and houses in front of it along Wedington. So it wasn't really possible to get down there. In looking at the site, one of those houses at the end of Tradition Avenue has had themselves a path so they can get back and forth. It is a fairly large lot. If that lot ever comes forward, we would probably connect to Tradition and have two ways in and out. Bundrick: That cul de sac actually belongs to the Park Department. It's in the park. Little: There is a good bit of land over here but it is undeveloped at this time. At such time that it might develop, we would look at that. Forney: I want to make sure that there is no commitment that we are making of the City that cannot make a connection to that cul de sac. Little: We have started asking Mr. Franklin to put up signs on those streets stating that • these are not dead end streets and there is possible future extension. We need to put one there. • Subdivision Committee Minutes January 14, 1999 Page 12 Bundrick: It will be a major challenge to extend that. Trotter: You could go left or right but it couldn't continue north. Johnson: Does the new requirement that Perry is complying with imply that you would never have a dead end sign on a street like this? Little: No. We will always have dead end signs at the street to alert people that you can not get through there but at the rear of the street where they touch other property will be the other signs that indicate future extension possible. Since this is park land, we will control any future extension. Petrie: At this time, the lift station is incomplete because the electric company is running behind. The developer has put up a cash guarantee to finish the work and this needs to be a condition of approval. Bundrick: I put up $1,300. Petrie: Our minimum easement for the sanitary sewer is 20 feet. There are several places where it is 15 feet. 1 would like for those to be increased to 20 feet. Trotter: Where? Petrie: Between Lot 123 and 124; Lots 138 and 139. This means the sewer is centered with 10 feet on either side. On the west side of Lot 119 and 101; and, on the east side of Lot 110. Also, on the south side of Lot 127. Bundrick: These were approved on the preliminary plat. Petrie: This is a general requirement for sanitary sewer; therefore, we would not have accepted anything less. If it's less than that, we can never get a truck in there to perform any work. People would be able to build a house 5 feet from a sewer line. That's not realistic. Bundrick: Actually, it would be 7.5 feet from the sewer line. Petrie: Look at Lot 139. I'm not sure where that would be? Johnson: You require that it be that minimum width at every location. Trotter: All easements need to be increased to a 20 feet wide easement for sewer. We have a 10 feet utility easement on this plat. That was okay with the utilities. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes January 14, 1999 Page 13 Little: That's okay. Petrie: You have the storm pipe labeled incorrectly. You can either take them off or relabel them. Little: Is that at more than one location? Petrie: Yes. Johnson: What should they show? Petrie: It is not a normal requirement for those to be labeled. It's fine with me if you just take it off. Johnson: They're labeled incorrectly in terms that they show an incorrect size? Petrie: Yes. That is why we require As-Builts. Forney: I want to make sure the developer didn't put those down because they thought they were the right dimension and if there is a wrong dimension we should tell them what the dimension should be. Petrie: That is not the case. Trotter: Our survey crew measured improperly when they did the final. Rutherford: The 4 feet green space needs to be labeled somewhere between the curb and sidewalk. Add the sidewalk symbol to the legend. Forney. It looks like the sidewalk is on the east side of Tradition, the north side of Alliance, and the east side of Plantation. So it is a one sided system on those streets and we will not have sidewalks on Chattel and on the south side of Alliance. Bundrick: Chattel already has sidewalk on the other side. Trotter: That was done in phase I. Forney: Now, we typically require sidewalks on both sides of a standard City street. Little: That is for 24 feet streets. • • Subdivision Committee Minutes January 14, 1999 Page 14 Rutherford: The standard that you are talking about was approved in the Fall of 1996. Little: This street is a hybrid. Warrick: The preliminary was approved in June of 1996. Little: The Planning Commission allowed the construction of a smaller street in exchange for construction of alleys. We required sidewalks on one side in phase I. He then built both them on both sides. Bundrick: I may end up doing them on both sides in here. I'm not sure. It's frustrating to have spent all that money on sidewalks and see them walking down the street four abreast and not using die sidewalk. Joggers use the street, too. Rutherford: For many people it's a matter of a level surface. Forney: I think we should stick with the conditions placed on them in 1996. The street you might consider putting them on both sides would be Plantation because there is the possibility that someday we may have a connection at that north end. I see the utility easement off the alley between Chattel and Alliance is actually on a property. I am impressed with what I have seen of this development using the alleys. I think it is a great way to take care of your solid waste. I wish we could come up with a way where the utility easements could be under the alley. That may present problems for Engineering. One reason we might not see more alley developments is because you have to give easement to the alley plus an easement off of it. Bundrick: You could put your sewer under the alley. It would be difficult with the other easements such as the gas and electric because they come in after your streets and alleys are in and they would have to cut those to do their installation. I guess the other thing with gas and electric, you have more damage to repair. You certainly could do the sewer. Forney: Did Harbor Meadows use gravel in the alley? Bundrick: No. They are concrete. Johnson: Is that not something where pavers could be used. Would that not be less expensive than concrete for the light traffic use? Little: Pavers tend to be fairly expensive to install because there is a lot of labor. Trotter: You have to have an adequate sub base to put them on. Basically, you have to put down concrete and then put the pavers on top of them. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes January 14, 1999 Page 15 Bundrick: We donated the 4.25 acres based on the park fees for the duplex bonus and then I'm probably not going to have 3 or 4 duplexes in there. Would there be a possibility of me taking the excess for my parks donation and having credit for project down the road somewhere? Little: You need to take that before the Parks Board. They are wholly in charge of that. MOTION Mr. Forney made a motion to approve FP98-7 subject to the conditions above. Mr. Ward seconded the motion. Ms. Johnson concurred. • • Subdivision Committee Minutes January 14, 1999 Page 16 LSD98-37: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT KRAUFT PP 290 This project was submitted by Neal Albright on behalf of Virginia Krauft for property located at 118 East Sunbridge Drive. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office, and contains approximately 1.24 acres. Neal Albright was present on behalf of this request. Staff recommended approval subject to the following: Location of the free standing sign must be moved back 5 feet to measure 15 feet from the front property line. Location of the cross access needs to accommodate a previously approved project which is located west of this lot. The access needs to be 24 feet wide and centered at a point which is 150 feet north of the south property line and shall be constructed. The parking lot shall connect to this cross access which shall be constructed to the west property line. An easement shall be dedicated to continue the cross access across this lot to the east property line. 3. Plat Review and Subdivision comments. 4. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, sidewalks, parking lots and tree preservation. The information submitted for plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements. The sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 5 feet sidewalk with a minimum 4 feet green space along Sunbridge Drive which is continuous through the driveway. 6. All utilities shall be located underground. 7. Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year. 8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the following is required: • a. Grading and drainage permits. • • Subdivision Committee Minutes January 14, 1999 Page 17 Separate easement plat for this project. c. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City as required by § 159.34. 9. Protective fencing needs to be provided for the 36 inch oak tree located on the plat. Neal Albright was present on behalf of the project Committee Discussion Little: This property is on Sunbridge Drive and it is further east than where we have seen some of the other developments. It is a proposed two story office building. I believe it will be counseling offices. It is subject to Commercial Design Standards but they have not requested any waivers. We do need to discuss the access easement before this project is approved. We need to talk about the location of the freestanding sign. We understand it is shown on your plat. They are proposing a 4 square feet sign which is allowed by ordinance but it will not allow that sign to be placed 10 feet from the right of way. The ordinance requires the sign to be setback 15 feet. We have talked about cross access and this one is harder than some of the others. Dawn spent some time working on the cross access for this. To the west across an intervening lot, we have an approved development for Bill Keating. What we have done is take the cross access that was provided for this lot and tried to line up a provision for cross access for this lot to meet. We need to talk about that. The access does need to be 24 feet wide and centered at a point which is 150 feet north of the south property line. That is specifically to try and make a way for this to be easily connected through. We weren't certain how to treat this to the east because those lots have not developed. We are asking for an access easement to go to the east but that could possibly change in the future. We need to look at the building with regard to Commercial Design Standards. Staff doesn't have specific issues on that. Rutherford: The 4 feet green space between the curb and sidewalk needs to be labeled. Little: The 5 feet sidewalk is alright? Rutherford: Yes. Albright: I just mark that green space? Rutherford: Between the curb and sidewalk. Hesse: Could you show protective fencing around the 36 inch oak? They will probably want to do some smoothing and I just don't want the roots of that tree disturbed. It's a nice tree. • Subdivision Committee Minutes January 14, 1999 Page 18 The fencing around the 24 inch oak is fine and it's exactly what I want on this 36 inch oak. Albright: We have no intention of doing any grading there at this time. Just the landscaping. Hesse: I'm sure they will want to smooth out the area behind there. I just don't want them compacting the soil. The plantings are shown in groupings which is contrary to the ordinance but I accept this as shown. In the area to the north, where buffering is required. There are pine trees there along the road and this is adequate. There is also a lot of space between the building and the property line to the north. I approve that as well. Johnson: Those pines are all located on this property? Albright: Yes. Ward: Go back over the cross access. Little: To the west we have already approved a large scale development. There is an • intervening lot. We need to connect through here and this lot needs to provide cross access to what has already been approved. We're not sure what to do back to the east. Rather than have them install another drive at this time, we request that they dedicate an access easement so that whatever develops to the east can be worked toward connecting them. • Albright: I have misunderstood the purpose of the cross accesses. I thought they were to provide access to the utilities. Little: Cross access is mainly for delivery trucks like UPS and Postal Service. They come in and go to these commercial buildings and they don't have to get back out on Sunbridge Drive and they don't impede traffic again. Dawn, have you looked at what you've drawn and how it would affect drainage? Albright: Since this is more of a residential type building, I don't anticipate any need for any access. Little: This is an office and this is subject to Commercial Design Standards and this is a requirement and something which the Planning Commission has to deal with. Ward: In this case, I am under the impression that the tenant is concerned with privacy for her patients. Having cross access to a place with this high visibility, is not in accordance with the wishes of this type of counselors. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes January 14, 1999 Page 19 Little: The doctors don't like it either but we have been requiring the doctors offices to add the cross access. Warrick. The purpose of the cross access is not necessarily visibility to the structures. It's access for people getting to and from the different structures and we have to keep in mind that these structures may not always be occupied by the same people. They will change out. We are not anticipating this developer to construct the cross access to the east at this time. We will only be looking for that portion connecting to the west. Little: It does make a difference in approving this at this level. If they object to the cross access a waiver will be required and it will have to go before the full Commission. We could actually curve this toward the back of the lot. This might be more fair for the lot to the east. This building is fairly small for the size lot that it is on. The developer to the west chose the mid range to utilize the parking aisles. Forney: This is not being very intensively developed. To make cross access more accessible to the parking lot at the mid range would be the best place. In some ways it makes sense to have a street and an alley in develops such as Sunbridge. I'm not real sure what we are trying to do with cross access. It seems we want people to use the cross access instead of having to get out on the public street. I -fere it seems to be mostly about services. Little: I think it is mostly about services. It's mostly about people that might want to go from one thing to another. There will be restaurants over in the adjacent development. It's impossible to predict where people might want to go but it allows them a way to go without getting in the major traffic flow. By doing that, we preserve the capacity on the major streets. If they are not constantly interrupted by people going and coming then there can be smother flow. Forney: I wonder if we should start trying to systematize it for commercial zones and maybe for R -O. The way we are locating it in a circumstantial way according to the project that comes in. We'll have easements that will be kind of patchwork. I also wish we could systematize having the various easements associated for utilities at the back of the lot and associated with alleys as well. That would mean having utility access to them on a paved or pavered surface. Little: That makes practical sense. Mr. Keating is the developer of the property to the east and he has done most of what is out in Sunbridge. They are the biggest proponents of cross access. On of the things they tell us it, it increases the business at the front door. If we had made them put the cross access to the rear, it would be at back doors and it doesn't really serve the retail customer as well. It is a little painful to do it one by one. But, if we set it at the subdivision level, we take away a lot of their flexibility. Some of Sunbridge, I would never have dreamed would have come forward. Subdivision Committee Minutes January 14, 1999 Page 20 Forney: I find myself thinking that the cross access was More in the way Keating sees it as creating more flow for customers. As we have described it to Mr. Albright, it is mostly about service needs and that would make a different location for cross access more desirable. Little: it's there. I have observed the UPS and postal service using it daily. I use it because I know Ward: Say if this was Staff Mark going in here. In a short time, they would probably be adding on or developing the lot to its fullest extent and having as many square feet on this lot as allowed. It would impact a lot of this. Little: They would have to have parking and when they did their parking, we would use the road through the parking as the cross access. It doesn't have to be a straight shot. We don't mean for it to be high speed. They would just go through he parking lot slowly and carefully. Forney: Would we let thein relocate that? Little: Yes. When the intervening lot develops and we need to talk to them about cross access and we haven't pre -established something how do we talk about that? Johnson: I think we show it. As long as our approach is that when it connects up with an undeveloped lot that we won't put the cross access location in concrete, then it seems we have the best of both worlds. Our experience is that if it is not shown on a plat, then it will get lost. Albright: The requirements is to go ahead and build this access to the east now? Little: Sunbridge. To build the one connecting to the intervening lot between this development and Albright: What is that dimension there? Little: This happens to be 150 feet. Albright: To the center? Little: Yes. Kim has expressed concern about the trees. Albright: It is imperative to this project that the trees not be removed. Little: Okay. We are only talking about the part constructed to the intervening lot between this project and Sunbridge. Please do that part in at 24 feet wide. Subdivision Committee Minutes January 14, 1999 Page 21 Albright: Who will be responsible for building the access to the west? Little: It would likely be the other owner. Albright: There would be some grading in order to locate it. Little: Because it is an access easement, they would have the right to use it and at the time this one comes, Planning Commission will have to decide what will happen. Ward: It might never be needed. Albright: They don't need the access to the east, so why do they have to construct it? Ward: The next lot might need it then we have the access there. This if it is not needed it will never change. Little: The one case where it would absolutely not be needed and it's an outside chance, but this is zoned R -O so you could develop this as a duplex. If they wanted to put residential in there and in that case it would not require the cross access. Johnson: We have other Commercial Design issues? Little: Nothing specific. We did make a comment about the location of the sign. It will have to be moved back to allow 15 feet from the property line. Johnson: We have a drawing of the office building which also has to comply with Commercial Design Standards. Do you have the materials? It appears to be native stone. Albright: Yes. Johnson: What is light tan e.f.? Albright: Drivet. Johnson: And gray architectural compositions. Little: There is already another building out there and it's across the street. I think it is a counseling office, too. This is very similar to the existing building. This building doesn't really match further down, but it does match this vicinity. Ward: This seems very articulated. It's got corners, cuts, and lines. It's not a square box Subdivision Committee Minutes January 14, 1999 Page 22 for sure. Johnson: There are a lot of windows. Ward: Does this have to go before the full Planning Commission? Johnson: The design elements guidelines -- we want to minimize unpainted concrete blocks, and box like structures and metal siding dominating the front and large, blank, _ unarticulated surfaces and large out of scale signs. Forney: If can approve this at this level, I want to make sure we are absolutely right down the middle and not have any of our fellow commissioners say they didn't get a chance to look at it. Little: You can approve this at this level. You are obligated to send this on to the Planning Commission if we don't make the decision to require the cross access. If you want more input on that, we need to send it on. What is the developer's schedule like? Albright: As soon as possible, of course. Johnson: What is your preference? If we approve this at this level, we will require the cross access and the only way this would not be required is if it's waived by the whole Commission. My sense is this group wouldn't waive it. We'll go ahead and have to locate the rest of the easement. Would you rather it go to the full Commission in an effort to seek a waiver of the entire cross access which I presume the whole Commission has the authority to grant. Albright: No. I don't think I would be comfortable in requesting a waiver at this point because they don't know enough about the future to waive it. Forney: I am unaware of anything in our regulations that would raise issues with the full Commission. Johnson: Where did we end up on the cross access? Was the proposed access not to be built easement? And it will be shown on the plat? Albright: Yes. Warrick; We will review the cross access when they are requesting a building permit. They will have to have revised plans turned into our office that show the easement and the piece to be constructed. • • Subdivision Committee Minutes January 14, 1999 Page 23 MOTION Mr. Ward recommended approval of LSD98-37 subject to moving the sign to have a 15 feet setback and also the plat should reflect a 4 feet green space between the curb and the sidewalk and that the 36 inch oak should be protected like the other oak trees, and also the cross access easement to the east should be built and the access easement to the west should be shown. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. Ms. Johnson concurred approving the large scale development at this level. Further Discussion Albright: Can we wait until the lot to the east gets their development in to construct our eastern cross access? Little: Who ever finishes first. He's go to build one and you have to build one. Who ever gets their permit first. Albright: I would rather match his grade than for him to try and match my grade. Little: There is an intervening lot. Can we look at that at final grading plan? Petrie: We can. Little: We will use our best guess. We'll look at that when we get final grading plans. Albright: Okay. Forney: You would have to meet the grade on the property line. You can't grade on the adjoining property. They will have to meet it whatever it is. Albright: On the easement, I'll put that in as future access to be constructed by others. Johnson: No. In the event this property more fully develops, this owner would be obligated to construct the access. Albright: She might sell it and they might decide to expand. • Johnson: I don't think it is necessary to say the access will be constructed by others. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes January 14, 1999 Page 24 Little: Just call it. "future access easement." Johnson: This cross access both the location and grading will be determined at final grading plan. Staff, is there anything further? Little: There is a Special meeting on January 15 at 2:00 p.m. in room 326. We have invited the Street Committee members to this meeting. Meeting adjourned at 10:35 a.m. 1 SUBDIVISION MINUTES INDEX - 1999 231 W. Ash 06/17/99 4333 Bridgewater 09/02/99 1505 N. College 03/11/99 2786 N. Crossover 06/17/99 2786 N. Crossover 07/01/99 406 Dbl. Springs Rd 07/15/99 2790 Golden Eagle Dr 11/22/99 2623 N. Gregg St 10/28/99 1755 S. Hoot Owl Ln 04/01/99 1728 Mission Blvd 07/01/99 3418 Plainview 01/28/99 1855 Porter Rd 09/02/99 3275 N. Sassafras Hill Rd 11/10/99 3284 Skillem Rd 05/13/99 2831 Strawberry Dr 04/01/99 118 E. Sunbridge 01/14/99 5817 Tipton Rd 04/01/99 3061 Valerie Dr 01/14/99 339 N. West Ave 11/22/99 5345 W. Wheeler 07/15/99 5415 Wheeler Rd 12/30/99 6338 W. Wheeler 05/13/99 6432 W. Wheeler 05/13/99 708 W. Whillock 01/14/99 AD99-21 WRMC 09/30/99 AD99-13 ICE PLANT DEV 11/22/99 ALLIED STORAGE LSD99-3 02/11/99 ARTHURS LSD99-7 03/11/99 ALTUS ADDITION PP99-2 02/25/99 ALTUS ADDITION FP99-2 04/01/99 APPLEBY ESTATES PP99-15 12/30/99 AR RESEARCH & TECH PP99-8 09/16/99 AR RESEARCH & TECH PP99-8 12/02/99 AR RESEARCH & TECH LS99-25 12/02/99 AR RESEARCH & TECH LS99-31 12/30/99 BANK OF FAYETTEVILLE LSD99-803/11/99 BANK OF FAYETTEVILLE LSD99-21 07/15/99 BENARD LS98-52 01/14/99 BRIDGEPORT III FP99-6 10/14/99 BRIDGEPORT IV V VI PP99-10 10/14/99 BRONSON LSD99-18 07/01/99 BURTON LS99-6 04/01/99 CALHOON LS99-3.1 04/01/99 CANDLEWOOD PP99-1 01/28/99 CANDLEWOOD PP99-1 02/11/99 CANDLEWOOD FP99-5 09/30/99 41 CANDLEWOOD FP99-5 10/14/99 CHARLESTON PLACE FP99-3 04/29/99 CHARLESTON PLACE FP99-3 05/13/99 CHARLESTON PLACE FP99-3 06/03/99 CONLEY LS99-15 07/15/99 CONNOLLY LSD99-20 09/16/99 COPPER CREEK (Stoneridge) PP99-13 11/10/99 COPPER CREEK (Stoneridge) PP99-13 11/22/99 COVINGTON PARK PH I FP99-409/02/99 CRYSTAL SPRINGS I1 PP99-9 09/16/99 DAGGETT LS99-20 10/28/99 DAGGETT LS99-21 10/28/99 DAVIS LS99-19 12/02/99 FAIRVIEW MEMORIAL LSD99-1907/01/99 FP98-7 HERITAGE VILLAGE 01/14/99 FP99-I WEDINGTON PLACE 04/01/99 FP99-2 ALTUS ADDITION 04/01/99 FP99-3 CHARLESTON PLACE 04/29/99 FP99-3 CHARLESTON PLACE 05/13/99 FP99-3 CHARLESTON PLACE 06/03/99 FP99-4 COVINGTON PARK PH I 09/02/99 FP99-5 CANDLEWOOD 10/14/99 FP99-6 BRIDGEPORT III 10/14/99 FP99-7 ZION VALLEY 12/02/99 FREEMAN LS99-22 11/10/99 HARRIMAN LS99-10 05/13/99 HERITAGE VILLAGE FP98-7 01/14/99 ICE PLANT DEV AD99-13 11/22/99 KRAUFT LS98-37 01/14/99 LARSON LS99-11 06/17/99 LIFE COVENANT CHURCH LSD99-23 09/02/99 LS98-47 WOLFENBARGER 01/14/99 LS98-52 BENARD 01/14/99 LS98-53 OATES 01/14/99 LS99-3.1 CALHOON 04/01/99 LS99-5 SMITH 04/01/99 LS99-6 BURTON 04/01/99 LS99-8 SHOEMAKER 04/29/99 LS99-9 SISCO 05/13/99 LS99-10 HARRIMAN 05/13/99 LS99-11 LARSON 06/17/99 LS99-12 SCHMIDT 06/17/99 LS99-13 SCHMIDT 06/17/99 LS99-14 SCHMIDT 06/17/99 LS99-15 CONLEY 07/15/99 LS99-17 WILLIAMS 07/15/99 LS99-18 WARREN 08/02/99 LS99-19 DAVIS 12/02/99 LS99-20 DAGGETT 10/28/99 LS99-21 DAGGETT 10/28/99 LS99-22 FREEMAN 11/10/99 • LS99-24 SEXTON 12/30/99 LS99-25 AR RESEARCH & TECH12/02/99 LS99-31 AR RESEARCH & TECH 12/30/99 LSD98-12.1 TRICHELL MED 06/17/99 LSD98-37 KRAUFT 01/14/99 LSD99-1 OPTI PRO 01/28/99 LSD99-2 TOWN CENTER 02/11/99 LSD99-4 WEDINGTON PLACE 02/11/99 LSD99-3 ALLIED STORAGE 02/11/99 LSD99-5 WALGREENS 02/25/99 LSD99-6 MILLSAP CTR 03/11/99 LSD99-7 ARTHURS 03/11/99 LSD99-8 BANK OF FAYETTEVILLE03/11/99 LSD99-13 SUNBRIDGE 05/13/99 LSD99-14 NELMS AUTO 05/13/99 LSD99-15.1 ST. LOUIS BREAD CO06/17/99 LSD99-16 MCILROY 06/03/99 LSD99-16 MCILROY 06/17/99 LSD99-17 SPRING CREEK 06/17/99 LSD99-18 BRONSON 07/01/99 LSD99-I9 FAIRVIEW MEMORIAL 07/01/99 LSD99-20 CONNOLLY 09/16/99 LSD99-21 BANK OF FAYETTEVILLE 08/12/99 LSD99-23 LIFE COVENANT CHURCH 09/02/99 LSD99-24 SONIC 10/14/99 LSD99-25 3R & 8 WEDINGTON 12/02/99 MCILROY LSD99-16 06/03/99 MCILROY LSD99-16 06/03/99 MCMILLIN ESTATES PP99-1 I 11/10/99 MCMILLIN ESTATES PP99-1 1 11/22/99 MILLSAP CTR LSD99-6 03/11/99 MILLENNIUM PL PP99-7 09/02/99 NELMS AUTO LSD99-14 05/13/99 OATES LS98-53 01/14/99 OPTI PRO LSD99-1 01/28/99 PINE VALLEY V PP99-12 11/10/99 PINE VALLEY V PP99-12 11/22/99 PP99-I CANDLEWOOD 01/28/99 PP99-1 CANDLEWOOD 02/11/99 PP99-2 ALTUS ADDITION 02/25/99 PP99-3 ROBINWOOD 02/25/99 PP99-4 SUMMERSBY 06/03/99 PP99-5 CANDLEWOOD 09/30/99 PP99-5.I STONEWOOD 06/17/99 PP99-5.I STONEWOOD 07/01/99 PP99-7 MILLENNIUM PL 09/02/99 PP99-8 AR RESEARCH & TECH 09/16/99 PP99-8 AR RESEARCH & TECH 12/02/99 PP99-9 CRYSTAL SPRING II 09/16/99 PP99-10 BRIDGEPORT IV V VI 10/14/99 PP99-1 I MCMILLIN ESTATES 11/10/99 • PP99-11 MCMILLIN ESTATES 11/22/99 PP99-12 PINE VALLEY V 11/10/99 PP99-I2 PINE VALLEY V 11/22/99 PP99-13 COPPER CREEK (Stoneridge)11/10/99 PP99-13 COPPER CREEK (Stoneridge)11/22/99 PP99-14 WOODLANDS 12/02/99 PP99-15 APPLEBY ESTATES 12/30/99 ROBINWOOD PP99-3 02/25/99 06/17/99 06/17/99 06/17/99 12/30/99 04/29/99 05/11/99 04/01/99 10/14/99 06/17/99 06/17/99 06/17/99 06/17/99 06/17/99 05/13/99 12/02/99 02/11/99 06/17/99 02/25/99 08/02/99 02/11/99 04/01/99 07/15/99 01/14/99 12/02/99 09/16/99 09/30/99 12/02/99 SCHMIDT LS99-12 SCHMIDT LS99-13 SCHMIDT LS99-14 SEXTON LS99-24 SHOEMAKER LS99-8 SISCO LS99-9 SMITH LS99-5 SONIC LSD99-24 SPRING CREEK LSD99-17 ST. LOUIS BREAD CO LSD99-15.1.... STONEWOOD PP99-5.1 STONEWOOD PP99-5.1 SUMMERSBY PP99-4 SUNBRIDGE LSD99-13 3R & 8 WEDINGTON LSD99-25 TOWN CENTER LSD99-2 TRICHELL MED LSD98-12.I WALGREENS LSD99-5 WARREN LS99-18 WEDINGTON PLACE LSD99-4 WEDINGTON PLACE FP99- 1 WILLIAMS LS99-17 WOLFENBARGER LS98-47 WOODLANDS PP99-14 WRMC DISCUSSION WRMC AD99-21 ZION VALLEY FP99-7