Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-01-28 - Minutes• • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held at 8:30 a.m. in January 28, 1999 in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN LSD99-1: Opti Pro, LLC pp213 Approved PP99-1. Candlewood Sub pp 294 Subdivision on 2/11 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Lorel Hoffman Sharon Hoover Phyllis Johnson John Forney (arrived at 9:40) STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Kim Hesse Janet Johns Alett Little Ron Petrie Kim Rogers Chuck Rutherford Brent Vinson Dawn Warrick • • Minutes of a Meeting of the Subdivision Committee January 28, 1999 Page 2 LSD99-1: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT OPTI PRO, LLC PP213 This large scale development submitted by Richard L. Grubbs on behalf of Opti Pro, LLC for property located at 3418 Plainview Avenue, Lot 17 of CMN Business Park. The property is zoned C-2 Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 1.964 acres This project will provide a medical office building on Plainview Avenue located just south of the new Proctor & Gamble building. The building is proposed to contain approximately 46,000 square feet. Commercial Design Standards and Overhead Electric ordinances both apply. The Subdivision Committee should determine the following: A. If Commercial Design Standards have been complied with. B. The applicant needs to discuss overhead electric lines and if necessary provide a written waiver request. C. A landscape plan is required which indicates the species of all plants, size of each species at the time of installation, spacing requirements of each plant, and the type of edging and mulch to be used within the planting beds. All plantings must be within a specific prepared area Notes or details must be included that include the need to amend the soil within the beds. Indicated location of hose bibs or automated irrigation system. The above requirements are to be reviewed by the Landscape Administrator prior to the issuance of a building permit. D. Dimensions of the existing off site 20 feet utility easement should be shown along the property's southern boundary. E. The curb and gutter lines need to be removed through the driveways in the location of the sidewalks. Staff Recommendation and Conditions of Approval Should the Subdivision Committee chose to approve this project, staff recommends the following conditions of approval: 1. Plat Review and Subdivision comments. • 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 • Minutes of a Meeting of the Subdivision Committee January 28, 1999 Page 3 information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements. 3. Sidewalk construction should be in accordance with the current standards to include a 6 feet sidewalk with a 6 feet green space along Plainview. 4. All utilities shall be located underground. 5. Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year 6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits b. Separate easement plat for this project c. Completion of all required improvements or the place ofa surety with the City prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. • 7. Evidence of permission from Proctor and Gamble to tie onto the private storm sewer system. • 8. Guarantee for overhead electric lines along the east property line to be placed underground in the future by a $4,000 bond with no time limit. 9. Grading to be revised or setback accommodated along the south property line. 10. The vicinity map should be revised to show Plainview connection. 11. Only one curb cut will be allowed. Bob Kelly and Richard Grubbs were present on behalf of the project. Discussion Little: I want to thank the people that have brought this through. They have been really good to work with and they have already made several changes that made this project work better and go more smoothly through the process. They have already accommodated the cross access as requested. They requested two curb cuts in but the southernmost one has been blocked off. There is landscaping in there and they are leaving it as a landscape area now. As time goes on, they may actually want to close the north one and use the southern one. That do have only one curb cut. We do not have any particular issues on Commercial Design Standards. Work is needed with the Landscape Administrator on the landscaping. If we require the overhead electric to go underground • • • Minutes of a Meeting of the Subdivision Committee January 28, 1999 Page 4 we will need an off site easement and that will need to be shown. Petrie: The applicant is requesting a waiver from the setbacks for grading on the south side. Kelly: We moved that back so that we are not grading on adj. prop. We end up getting back to the original grade at the property line. We are not grading on anybody else. Petrie: The requirement is for a 5 feet setback from the property line. You've got to relocate all the utilities. There is a setback from the utilities. Kelly: Right. Except for the electric and that is not on our property. Petrie: There is an underground telephone -- Kelly: And gas. Petrie: The requirement is to be 5 feet off the lines. Kelly: We will retain at the back of the curb which will set us back to 5 feet. I think we can receive a letter from the adjoining property owners. One or the other. 3 feet is the max that we will be out. Petrie: The way it's shown now is not acceptable. Kelly: Okay. Petrie: You will have to get permission from Proctor and Gamble to tie on to their storm sewer. That is private Kelly: That is your request. Petrie: My request was to provide additional information downstream. It is a private system and not the City's. Kelly: I understand and we can do that. Rutherford: Remove the lines through the sidewalk. Hesse: Let me give you an example of what I'll be looking for on the landscape plan. I'll be looking for these things at building permit. If that's all right with the Commission, I can make Minutes of a Meeting of the Subdivision Committee January 28, 1999 Page 5 sure that they're meeting their requirements at the time they get their building permit. A lot of times, this is determined at the very end of the project. As long as it's there before the building permit, I always sign off on the building permit unless you want that information. Hoffman: There are no major trees and stuff here. Grubb: There are no trees. Hesse: As far as preservation, there are no trees but what I'm talking about is the landscaping within the parking lot. Hoffman: Are you using the setback reduction for green space? Kelly: On the street side, yes. Hoffman: Things such as the setback reduction that affect the plat would need to be taken care of at this stage. Warrick: They have turned in their request for a setback reduction. Kim is the one that has to approve that they submitted and are going to install appropriate planting to meet that requirement to reduce their setback from 50 feet to 25 feet. Hoffman: And you can make that determination now? Hesse: A lot of that requirement is the size of the plant at installation. They don't have that information on here. That is the type information that I was requesting. Then they need to have an actual plant list and the size of the plants that are going in and how big they are going to get. Hoffman: But you're waiting for the building permit. Hesse: I could unless you want that information at this stage. Johnson: We typically see it at this point. Is there a reason why we wouldn't see that on this one? Little: It's a matter of the level of detail. They have shown the screening but they haven't given her enough information to issue a building permit. Hesse: They have increased the island size which is what I had asked at the Tech Review stage. Our new landscape ordinance requires a detailed list of exactly what is going in there, the size • • • Minutes of a Meeting of the Subdivision Committee January 28, 1999 Page 6 at installation, and that is the information I don't have. I don't know if landscape architect or if they are doing it themselves. Kelly: We had the species before but I don't know where we put that. the 8 1/2 x 11 that you go?. Hesse: I didn't get that information. they working with a It wasn't included in Hoffman: At this stage, we have the ability to approve these projects. I would like to be able to send a project on such as this that doesn't seem to have major problems with knowledge that it's going to comply with all of the requirements. I hear you telling me that you have areas blocked out for landscaping that are adequate and we wouldn't have to change anything on the site plan after Subdivision Committee. If that is the case, I think I could be persuaded that it would be all right not to get the detailed list at this point. But then if you had a wooded site that needed tree preservation, I couldn't say that it would be okay all the time. Hesse: Tree preservation is a different issue. This is for proposed landscaping. Johnson: I guess my suggestion is that we go ahead and get through any other staff comments and then we discuss this and see if we think this is the only thing that we think is somewhat incomplete. Grubb: One of the reasons that we did that 25 feet setback was to make it a prettier site instead of having the pavement in front and the building way back. We thought with enough landscaping we could use the beauty of the building to help enhance the area Kelly: I think all we need is the species of what we're planting and the size. That's what we're missing. Hesse: I need to see what you are doing for irrigation. Kelly: It will have to be fully irrigated. Hesse: 1 just need to know where your spigots are. Also, I need to be sure that a contractor can install it. Public Comment None. • • Minutes of a Meeting of the Subdivision Committee January 28, 1999 Page 7 Further Discussion Johnson: I know we must address commercial design standards. We may want to address the landscape plan and it's completeness. You've been told about the dimensions of the off site utility easements, so you need to provide that. Staff would be able to sign off on that. You need to take the curb and gutter lines out of the driveways so the sidewalks are continuous. We understand that what you wish on the curb cuts on Plainview is to build the northern most at the northwest and to plan for but not build the southern most at the southwest; however, you may someday in the future come back and tell us that you want to switch those out. We may need to talk about that. Do we have any issues on the overhead electric? Little: There is an overhead electric line which is off site to the south. At our last meeting, Bob had said that he would go and talk to the owner at the south and see what could be worked out, so I'm lacking that information. Kelly: We cannot come on their property and take the electrical underground. We attempted and made an offer to buy that electric easement to the south. SWEPCO said they could not lower Just one section of that. They had to get both the east side and the south side together. We were unsuccessful in buying the easement property to the south. What SWEPCO had said at the last meeting was that if we put up a bond for lowering the one to the east, then when and if this property develops to the south, then it would all go underground. We do have it on our property on the east but not on the south. Little: What about these concrete pads that are on some else's property? How is that going to be accommodated? Kelly: Those are electrical switch gears. We should be in the utility easement. Warrick: Then there is an easement that is not currently shown on the plat. Little: We need the easement added. Kelly: It's a 20 feet easement. This is not ours. I think it is the one for the fire station. Little: Where will your power come from? Kelly: It will come off this power pole. • Little: Everything on this site with the exception of this line that is already here will be underground. You can give us the bond and when this property develops, SWEPCO has made the • Minutes of a Meeting of the Subdivision Committee January 28, 1999 Page 8 commitment that they'll put both underground. Johnson: You're suggesting then that we allow them to do what SWEPCO has suggested which is leave the electric line on the east above ground for the reason that they can't put the one on the south side underground because they tell us they can't buy the property and the line is not on them. Little: If they had been able to purchase the property then SWEPCO, for the price of $4,000 could have put all of this underground. They were unsuccessful in purchasing the right of way and what SWEPCO has said is that they can't put just this section underground. They are will to give us a bond for that amount. Kelly: I think the bond is for $4,000. Johnson: Is there a time limit? Little: No. • Kelly: I think who ever develops this has to pay for that line. Johnson: I'm talking about to the east. Little: The bond will not be refunded. • Hoffman: Then you will need a letter to alter your grading plan on the south property line and you can proceed with that. He's in a setback for grading. When would you expect that you can have that? Kelly: We'll attempt to get the letter from the adjoining property owner. If not, what we will do is put a retaining curb so we will meet the grade. Hoffman: You can work with that? Petrie: Yes. We won't approve the construction plans. Little: Could you go over the options for that so that when we deal with these things in the future, we will know what is required? Petrie: Cuts and fills on adjacent property require a 5 feet setback in most circumstances. What the ordinance says is that you can bring both properties jointly so we have assumed that you can provide written permission to do that so no variances will be required. • Minutes of a Meeting of the Subdivision Committee January 28, 1999 Page 9 Little: What was he saying about adding the curb? Petrie: He's saying they will provide a retaining wall 5 feet off that property line. Little: Rather than have a slope. Hoffman: Would that effect the parking layout? Would it decrease your parking aisle? Kelly: No. Little: Don't you have 2 feet overhang? Warrick: Not there. The westernmost parking spaces along the south boundary line are 17 feet. The 6 in that location overhang. The rest of them don't. You will have to move your curb back. Hoffman: When do you think you'll have the letter? • Kelly: I depends on when the corporation has a board meeting. It's the Lewis'. We will get on their agenda. • Little: As soon as you know, please get that to us so this piece of information is not lost. Kelly: I'm -sure Engineering will never give us a building permit until this is resolved. Hoover: This is the first time I've noticed a concrete swale. Petrie: That is an existing concrete swale that was put in when they did the subdivision. Kelly: That is why we're staying out of there completely. Johnson: Commercial design standards. Kelly: I brought the color rendering back. This is a sketch perspective. Little: What view is this from? Kelly: From the northwest. Little: What street? • • • Minutes of a Meeting of the Subdivision Committee January 28, 1999 Page 10 Kelly: About from the corner of Millsap and Plainview. Hoffman: Could you revise your area map to show that this road now connects? Where is the sign? Kelly: The sign is on the north side past the first group of parking. Warrick: It's shown on the elevation as a monument sign. Johnson: On the north elevation and south elevation, the aluminum store front. Explain that to me. That reads as if it is glass. What is that? Kelly: The center section is glass and it's an atrium area and a court area. Johnson: Why is it called aluminum store front? Grubbs: Glass people call it that. It's just the framing. Kelly: That's their term. Johnson: It's the framing? Hoffman: The white material is precast on the top and what is it on the first level? Kelly: Stone. Johnson: Split face block? Kelly: We want to get stone. At the back it will be a split face block. It looks like stone but it's Just split face. Some of the initial estimates for quarried stone are in the budget. Johnson: So, you're showing split face block. If you can get stone, you want to do that. Little: You're meaning rectangular cut pieces of stone. Kelly: Right. Johnson: What is the IFS? Kelly: IFS is exterior insulation finish system and it's the generic term for Drivet. • • • Minutes of a Meeting of the Subdivision Committee January 28, 1999 Page 11 Johnson. Do we have the commercial design standards checklist? Warrick: That review was done prior to the plan in front of you and it has been accommodated. Johnson: When you have a building that consists of rectangles, does that gets by the box like structure? I think we have assumed that it does. Little: I think the one thing that might help us is for an aerial view of the footprint of the building. If you look at the rendering, it shows the recesses. With the angles and protrusions, it overcomes the box. Grubb: We wanted to keep away from the box and that is why it's at an angle. Hoover: I want to thank the applicant for putting the slope and contour on the elevation. A lot of people are just bring us things that are not like anything they are going to look like. Johnson: What about the trees as shown? Are they essentially what we are going to get? Warrick: They match the plan. Johnson: I think it is a good idea to start requiring the overview, that will have us time. -Hoffman: Let's talk about the landscape issues. It's something that I think is important. Landscaping makes or breaks a site in many occasions. If we do agree that a full review can be done at building permit level, I want a lot of assurances that we are going to meet all our parking lot and landscape ordinances. Johnson: We're talking about the islands in the parking lot? Hesse: And the perimeter. We had never required side set back or anything. The perimeter aspect and the details on the beds and waterlines can come in later. They need the information on the size of the plants. Johnson: I think we have three choices. We could have them come back to this level. We could send them on to Planning Commission and say we have to see that then. Or we can say that we are comfortable with the landscape administrator making those decisions at building permit stage. I think we can go either way. I think we have less information than we typically see. I don't know if there is reason why we couldn't require the additional information before we approve it. Little: You could. But, it is not unusual for you to have this level of detail. A plant list • Minutes of a Meeting of the Subdivision Committee January 28, 1999 Page 12 would be very helpful and she wants it and we will get that. We are implementing our latest changes so that is part of the cross over I am comfortable either way. I would not be comfortable making them come back to Subdivision. I think it is something they certainly could get by the time they go to Planning Commission and I'm also comfortable and have the confidence in Kim that if she doesn't have what she needs by building permit, they won't get started. Hoffman: This is not something that you feel will alter the configuration of the parking lot or the site or create problems like that? Hesse: They have made the changes as far as the site with the islands. As to the issue of the size of the trees they have enlarged the island so they can get by with larger trees. I need to know the species so they aren't something that is planted in too small a space. Hoffman: I would shy away from making a statement that it is always okay but on this site I feel like it is'about 90% there. I'd feel comfortable with deferring that decision to the building permit stage for staff. • MOTION • Ms. Hoffman made a motion to approve this plan subject to staff comments including the landscaping to be approved at building permit stage, determination and receipt of a bond for off site utilities with no time limit on the overhead electric along the east side, permission from Proctor and Gamble to tie into their storm sewer or revision of the south grading, sidewalks shall be shown continuous through the driveway, the site will be limited to one curb cut, and the vicinity map needs to be corrected to show Plainview is a through street. Ms. Hoover seconded the motion. Ms. Johnson voted in favor of approving this project at this level subject to the conditions. • • Minutes of a Meeting of the Subdivision Committee January 28, 1999 Page 13 PP99-1: PRELIMINARY PLAT CANDLEWOOD SUBDIVISION, PP294 This item was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of David Chapman for property located north of Township and east of Highway 265. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately 45.60 acres with 60 lots proposed. This preliminary plat is for a subdivision which is located south and east of the Brookbury Subdivision and will have access from Township Road (when extended) and from Crossover Road. A tributary of Mud Creek runs the length of the development along its eastern boundary. The Subdivision Committee should address the following: A. Stub out(s) for future street connections. The applicant is proposing a connection to the north only and requests that no other connections be required. (A letter is on file.) Originally staff recommended connections to the north, west, and east. A connection to the west/southwest is still recommended between lots 12 and 13 . The most reasonable option for a connection to the east would be between lots 39 and 40. Although the grade is quite steep, there is already a low water crossing in place at this location. Planning Commission must determine the appropriate contribution towards the future improvements to Highway 265. The applicant is to contact the Arkansas Highway Department per Engineering's request. C. The legal description for this subdivision does not match the one for the rezoning that was recently approved. The applicant's engineer speculated that the reason was the dedication of right of way for Township Road and Crossover Road. This needs to be confirmed or an explanation provided in order for the project to continue to the Planning Commission. D. Prior to the submittal of construction plans, a retaining wall shall be designed along Candlewood Dr. on Lot 10 for the preservation of the double oak tree that is existing. Staff Recommendations and Conditions of Approval 1. Plat Review and Subdivision comments. 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. Information submitted for plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All • Minutes of a Meeting of the Subdivision Committee January 28, 1999 Page 14 public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements. 3. Payment of parks fees in the amount of $22,500.00 (60 lots @ $375.00 each.) 4. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include 4 feet sidewalks with minimum 6 feet green space on both sides of Candlewood Dr., Silverton Dr., and Waxwood Dr. and 6 feet sidewalk with a minimum 10 feet green space along Township Road and Crossover Road The sidewalks on Highway 265 should be shown and the sidewalk symbol should be added to the legend. 5. The Preliminary Plat approval is to be valid for one calendar year. 6. Replacement of the sanitary sewer lines on Lots 43 and 44. 7. The 100 year water surface elevation to be shown at construction phase. 8. Add the floodplain to the vicinity map. 9. Add the Easton Park (Covington) Streets to vicinity map. Show all streets on vicinity map that have been approved by increasing the area shown. 10. Dedication for State Highway warranty deed dedication. 11. Islands are not to be included in the right of way dedication. 12. A determination and agreement should be reached with Perry Franklinand Arkansas Western Gas regarding whether or not gas light fixtures will be used. 13. The pedestrian access easement to the park land should be surfaced to the manholes and the access should be marked with a sign showing City Access not Park Access. 14. A private drive sign should be erected at the Terminella property. Dave Jorgensen and David Chapman were present on behalf of the project. Discussion • Little: We have given out the staff conditions and we have given out a letter about ingress and egress. They originally wanted only one entrance. The engineer convinced Mr. Chapman that • • • Minutes of a Meeting of the Subdivision Committee January 28, 1999 Page 15 his subdivision would not get approved without the additional entrance so they have added one onto Township. This will work really well because it comes out right across from the school. Chapman: We bought an additional 5 acres to add it. Little: When staff reviewed this, we have the connectivity requirement in the City, so we are going to need to talk about additional access points. They have added an additional stub out to the north between Lot 24 and 25 and it's in a location that will work fairly well. The areas that we talked about were either between Lots 7 and 8 or Lots 12 and 13 being the optimal place for the stub out back to the south. There is piece of property there owned by Dr. Runnels that could possibly develop in the future. The other area that we talked about would be over to the east. There is a creek there and there is flood plain and we will look at this on our tour. The only place really to get across that creek is at a low water bridge which crosses the creek in the vicinity of Lot 39 and 40. There is also a grade there. The letter that you have from the engineer, starts off discussion a stub out between Lots 6 and 7 or Lots 12 and 13. The staff's preference is between Lots 12 and 13. Mr. Jorgensen says, "The grade between Lot 12 and 13 (I think he means Lots 6 and 7) is 11.5% and the allowable grade at the intersection is only 4%." What he is talking about is that where you get up to the point where the street intersects with another street, the grade can only be 4%. "We have the same problem with the grade between 12 and 13. The grade is 14.5% and we are only allowed 4% at the intersection. As for the connection street to the east, we do not show a connecting street on this side because Mud Creek represents such a physical barrier to cross." That is the issue with regard to additional stub outs. In the past, any time we have had a project adjacent to a state highway, we have determined a proportionate share of the cost for improvement of the state highway and we have generally used traffic. That is what we used on the Cliffs and for the Bank out 16 West. We need to talk about what the appropriate contribution would be for Highway 265. We need more information on the legal description. When we annexed and rezoned this area, we got one legal description and now in checking the legal for this subdivision, it doesn't match. On Lot 10, there is a double oak tree, we will need to see at construction plan, that we are expecting to see a retaining wall on Candlewood Drive for preservation of that tree. Johnson: We don't see that tree. Little: It must have been on our tree preservation plan. Hesse: Would you like to see it? We discussed trying to save another one but it would push the house into the flood plain. They are doing a good job saving a lot of trees. Petrie. missed it. You need to replace the sanitary sewer line between Lots 43 and 44. 1 think you just Minutes of a Meeting of the Subdivision Committee January 28, 1999 Page 16 Jorgensen: It looks like there is an omission between the manhole. That is supposed to be continued on. Petrie: We expect the 100 year water surface elevation determined on Mud Creek at construction phase. Rutherford: On Highway 265, I take it you are showing your shaded line for sidewalk. You need to show that on Highway 265. It's not very clear. Add that symbol to the legend. Little: We need you to add the flood plain to your vicinity map. Hesse: You need to cross reference the tree location with the location of the sewer lines. Public Comment Ms. Ceclia Tu adjoining property owner was present inquiring about the street access stub out to her property. Johnson: That street is shown as Candlewood and will "T" to the edge of your property. If your property is developed, then this provides a connection to this subdivision. Mr. Matt Slusarek, Ms. Tu's son in law, inquired if a gate could be put at the point? Johnson: There is no prohibition about what Ms. Tu could do. She could plant a tree, she could build a wall, she can build a house. Slusarek: If we built a drive, would that be public access? Johnson: No. The whole purpose is so adjoining property which may develop in the future, will have access. It is Ms Tu's decision to develop if she ever decides to. Tu: I plan to build two houses and I would go through everything. Then that street would become a public access. Johnson: If you develop in the future and depending on what you develop, there may be some requirements for you to connect. You will be entitled to connect. Warrick: We would look for future connectivity on their development as well. Chapman: Do you know the size or shape or acreage of their property? The land to the north • • Minutes of a Meeting of the Subdivision Committee January 28, 1999 Page 17 of that property is R -O. There will be a question at some point in time as to whether it is big enough to develop. The problem I have is losing this lot and building a road for two houses unless they are planning to build a street. Hoffman: They would probably have to construct a city street at that time. Chapman: If they had a big piece of land that would be highly developed, I could understand the reason for a stub out. Johnson: What is to keep this tract from being combined with other tracks either to the north or the east in the future. Chapman: The east is Mud Creek and it is already developed. There is a subdivision on this side which is R -O, this is me and this abuts 265. It is developed as Williams Dance Studio. Tu: There is 6 acres next to me was owned by the church. They sold 2 acres to Mrs. Williams. There are 4 acres to the north of me. I just don't want to get locked in. Johnson. How many additional acres are there to the north of you? Tu: 4 acres. Johnson: So we have your property and an additional 4 acres. Given the fact that there is only 10 acres of undeveloped land to the north, will you be required to build a street. Chapman: Where is the other 4 acres in relation to this? Tu: It is between me and the dance studio. Hoffman: So the dance studio does not touch your property? Tu: No. Chapman: I hate to loose a lot and build a street for a convenience of a couple of houses. I didn't know about this other two acres. Johnson. We need to be sure that we have addressed all the concerns. • Sulsarek: We don't know what's going to happen. • • • Minutes of a Meeting of the Subdivision Committee January 28, 1999 Page 18 Tu: I don't want to build a half million dollar home and find out there are all shacks around me. Right now there is a farm house. We are a very small land owner and we want to protect ourselves. Johnson. This would be a street that dead ends at your boundary line. Tu: They are not going to use that and that's why they want to put a tree or rock wall. Johnson. They can use it. No one has the right to come from your subdivision onto their property but if they want to build a driveway up to the street, they could use it. Chapman: But they could entrance off of 265. Johnson: This is a public street and anybody has the right to use it once it's built. If the neighbors to the north choose to use it, they will be entitled. There is no one that will be entitled to go on their land because there is not a street yet. Chapman: I'll be glad to sell them an easement but I'm spending a lot of money to provide the ideal for two houses. Johnson: That is our requirement in terms of connectivity. It goes with developing in the City. Matt, is it your contention that you prefer that the street be built or not be built. Slusarek: The way it is, we want to go in and build a house. We don't know how the property next to us will development. If it is something that is objectionable to us then we don't want to be locked in where we can't sell the property. We may want to have that entrance. Johnson: We are limited to what is before us now. This property owner does have the right to develop his property. We feel like what this plat shows helps your property. It does allow a connection to your property. It does imply that if your property is developed heavily that there will be a connection here. Further Discussion (Mr. Forney arrived at 9:40) Hoffman: Since there is concern about the location of the north stub out, is this the only location available? I think we clearly need a stub out into this property. Is this the only acceptable location for the lot configurations on this side or have you looked at crossing Mud Creek? • • Minutes of a Meeting of the Subdivision Committee January 28, 1999 Page 19 Little: We looked at connections in several directions. The only feasible place we feel like Mud Creek could be crossed is where there is already a low water bridge and that is between Lots 39 and 40. This is a drive into another home. The only other place would be towards the Runnel's property. Warrick: A stub out in that direction would require a variance from our grading requirements due to the grade. Chapman: The location doesn't bother me at all It's just having to stub out. Jorgensen: The reason it got located there is because it is the closest location from our street to the north property line. Also, at that point, the terrain begins a down hill slope toward the creek and it is not practical to go in a northeasterly direction towards the creek and getting down in the flood plain and have to worry about all those problems. Hoffman: I agree with you. I know it's hard to see this money being spent now for whatever comes on down the line. I feel like we do need to plan for future connections. Johnson: I take it you've designed Lot 26 and I take it that you don't think it can be narrowed to make up for the lot you'll by stubbing out? Chapman: I really don't want smaller lots. We took out 4 lots out of the original design to get larger Tots. Forney: As the creek continues on to the north, I can't recall whether it crosses under 265 or Skillern or Appleby? Little: At Skillern. Skillern goes over the creek. At the intersection of Old Wire from the west and Skillern from the east and then there is a bridge and it finally crosses under 265. Chapman: About 100 feet east of 265. Forney: Will we be able to get this north connection all the way to Skillern or will it ultimately go back to Crossover. Little: It goes back to Crossover. Jorgensen: This is the Tu property which is about 300 feet north and south and then we found out that there is a portion of property in here before you get to the Williams Dance Studio and this property is owned by a church. So it would have to back over to 265. We can't go east because Minutes of a Meeting of the Subdivision Committee January 28, 1999 Page 20 that's Brookbury. Johnson: Isn't that land that we've had projects proposed that have never been approved? Little: We've had a number of rezoning requests. We've never had a project proposed. We've had rezoning from C-2 to C-1 to R -O and they've all been turned down. Johnson: The neighbors were in an uproar and defeated that. Hoffman: Let's talk about the Terminella property. Little: Manny Terminella is Tom's brother and does not have an interest in this development as far as I know. Hoffman: I was trying to get an alternate connection. Johnson: What subdivision is Idlewood? Jorgensen: Brookbury. Johnson: What is the east west crossing up from this? Warrick: Summershade or Piper Glen. Johnson. What subdivision is that? Jorgensen: That's Brookbury. Johnson: All of that is Brookbury all the way to Skillern? Jorgensen: Right. Johnson: What is engineering's sense whether Mud Creek along this boundary is always going to be considered unbridgeable? What we thought we were willing to build bridges over in 1960 we don't think that way in 2000? We would bridge more streams in this area now than we would have considered in 1960? We bridge more now because of the economy and the population. Little: We've run out of land. We're down in the valleys and on the hills now. Johnson: Mud Creek is too big to build across between subdivisions. • • • Minutes of a Meeting of the Subdivision Committee January 28, 1999 Page 21 Little: It's not the biggest stream by any stretch of imagination. Bridgeport bridged a much larger stream. Jorgensen: This is about a $275,000 bridge. Hoffman: Did they pay for that? Little: They paid 100% because 100% of their traffic had to cross it. Hoffman: But this would be different because it comes between two subdivisions. Jorgensen: The cost would be about the same. Little: Because this used to be county land, they split off bigger areas and this is all that this piece had. When it got down to giving access to Skillern Road, they had to buy one of these pieces of land and an additional tract. This is the frontage they have on Skillern. It is only one lot deep. Hoffman: How many acres are undeveloped in this vicinity? If somebody came in with a subdivision, maybe eventually a bridge could connect. Little: She's referring to the east and south of Savannah. Jorgensen: That's all Easton. Hoffman: That's already done? Little: Ms. Thurston has some. Jorgensen: That is south of Brookbury. Thurston has 20 and it comes over to Easton. Hoffman: If the sense is that this would not be well served because it turns right back out to 265, but then you would be locked in with one street in. If you developed a connection at one of the shorter lots that would eventually hope to cross Mud Creek. Chapman: This isn't very far from the new Township Road. Little: If we had caused Brookbury to have had a stub out right here, then there would have been a way to have gone from that side over to 265 and eventually down to the school. We didn't do that. That was the same situation we are in now. We only made them have one stub out. Minutes of a Meeting of the Subdivision Committee January 28, 1999 Page 22 Johnson: What is north of this property that is undeveloped up to Skillern? Do we have any subdivisions? Little: It's all those big chunks that come back real deep off 265. Johnson: The only development there is Williams? Little: This is vacant and then there is the old Williams and then there is the new Williams building and then there is the Tu's land and the church property. Chapman: Tu's land connects? Little: Tu's land comes to the section line. There is a piece along there that is undeveloped. Johnson: What we are looking at north of this property is constrainted by 265 on the west and constrained on the east by Mud Creek and where we aren't constrained by Mud Creek, we have Brookbury and then we go north to Skillern. We have a whole area between Mud Creek and 265 to consider whether we need a connection to the north. So we wouldn't have a connection because the land is more narrow and because The Williams are the only reasons for not having a northern connection. I'm not persuaded that the development of the Williams/Tu property is not reason enough not to have a connection there. Little: When you purchased the 4 acres how many lots did you end up with? Jorgensen: 4 or 5 lots. Little: So you had a way to get a street in but after building the whole thing you would only get lots of one side of it. Chapman: We thought we had to align with another street. Little: That is the reason the stub to the north would be a good reason, too, because without this anybody trying to get to that school does have to use the intersection at 45 and 265 Hoover: What are the zones of the adjoining properties? Little: It's A-1 all the way to Skillern with the exception of the R -O parcels. Johnson: Are there committee members that want to try to persuade us that they don't need this connection. • Minutes of a Meeting of the Subdivision Committee January 28, 1999 Page 23 Forney: The north south that is on the Master Street Plan that runs between Brookbury and Mud Creek -- Little: It's gone. We could get the Brookbury connection. Jorgensen: It's hard to imagine Brookbury not extending south to Township. Hoffman: The creek is the natural barrier. Johnson: There is a stub out where Brookbury could continue south. Forney: If I remember, the neighborhood was extremely antagonists of connections. Little: Without a connection from this one, that's the only way for the property to develop. Jorgensen: There is a good reason for going due south to Township and that's to get their kids over to the school. It's hard to argue with that one. • Hoffman: Unless somebody can come up with a solid eastern connection across the creek, I think we should keep the north one. Forney: Did staff initiate this northern connection? Little: Yes. We told them to look at three places. We told them to look east, south, and north. They accommodated north and feel that grades are too severe to the south and east Jorgensen: We've followed the contours with our streets. One of the reasons we didn't access the Runnel's property is because it's on a hill and we would have to go up a hill to get to it and that would be a problem. The Runnel's property is bounded by Township on the south, 265 on the west and they have a fair amount of access plus Runnel does not want a connection. We've been through that before. Chapman: We tried to buy both pieces of land to the south and north. Johnson: If the Runnel's property developed as a subdivision, could it be served by a continuous "L" shaped street connecting Township and 265. Little: He doesn't go all the way to 265. Johnson: He could buy access to 265. • • • Minutes of a Meeting of the Subdivision Committee January 28, 1999 Page 24 Little: They would have to stub out. Forney: What is the north south length? Little: 1100 feet. Forney: We certainly wouldn't want to have a cul de sac. Johnson: We don't have the landowners begging us for a connection so we will deal with their problems when they come forward. Forney. We need to get the Brookbury connection north/south. Johnson: That's the strongest argument for a connection on the east side of this property. Fomey: I agree. I'm trying to remember a case where we built a bridge that didn't go any place. Hoffman: I think we would just have land set aside for it. Little: Mr. Marquess gave us money for Salem Road bridge on two different occasions on two different subdivisions. He gave us $50,000. Forney: This developer would not have to construct across the street but he would have to make a contribution. Do we need that much access? There's only about 4,000 feet between Crossover and Skillern. That seems substantial not have a connection through it. Little: This property is about 2,000 feet. Forney: We're talking about no east/west for about 1 mile. How does that fit into the patterns we've established elsewhere. Johnson: What is staff's recommendation on a connection to the east? Little: We've approached it in terms of where would people be trying to go? We've mainly thought about the school. Our thoughts were that people from Brookbury and any extensions could still go to the south and take Township over to get through there. Brookbury can't do that now and there is no connection proposed through here. The only way to get a connection is to take Brookbury and stub out which would get into a pretty steep area. The other thing that needs to come into this discussion is we really would like to see more children walk so there is a trail access to get to the • • • Minutes of a Meeting of the Subdivision Committee January 28, 1999 Page 25 park land that has been dedicated along the creek as a part of Brookbury. That gives this subdivision access and it also gives this subdivision access to the sidewalks to get to this school. Hoffman: It there an area to cross the creek or is this all fenced? Little: There is not an area to cross. Rogers: At this time, the Park Division does not have any plans whatsoever in building a bridge across Mud Creek from Brookbury to this subdivision. Hoffman: So there is no easement on this side. Johnson: Wouldn't you have interest in connecting two subdivisions? Rogers: There is a lot of discussion about Brookbury. We are not interested at this point. Johnson: Further to the east, what is that? Jorgensen: That is the approximate location of Easton Park. Johnson: We need the vicinity map to show everything, including approved streets. Little: Would you add the streets? Jorgensen: Regarding the extension to the east, Mud Creek represents such a barrier for crossing that it just wasn't practical to cross anywhere. We were also thinking about where people would be traveling to. Mainly to the school and to Township to travel east and west. We are hoping Brookbury will be extended to provide that access. Johnson: I'm not too interested in having all site traffic go through another subdivision which doesn't have the connections it needs. Jorgensen: We don't have access to the south at all. We don't have access to the west out of Savannah at all. Nor do we have access out of Brookbury to the west. The only access location we have is out of Brookbury Crossing at the south end which was anticipated to continue south to Township. Johnson: What Dave is telling us is that everything on his vicinity map east of his property that there are only two stub outs. One is Brookbury to the south and the other is a stub out that goes to his comer. He says there are no other stub outs to the east. Minutes of a Meeting of the Subdivision Committee January 28, 1999 Page 26 Little: That's right. Johnson: Is everything from Savannah south developed in his vicinity map? Is there a development from Savannah south to Township? Little: Our development pattern was right along the road and we left pieces that people have had to acquire for access. Jorgensen: We did have access on Township for Easton. Township extends to the east all the way to the property line and then turns south to Highway 45 and goes to the north. MOTION Ms. Johnson made a motion to have the preliminary plat come back to subdivision and when it returns that all streets that have been approved are shown in the vicinity map. Johnson: Does the vicinity map need to show a larger area? Little: It would be nice to see the school on 45. Ms. Hoffman seconded the motion. Mr. Forney concurred. Further Discussion Chapman: Time wise does this mean we are stopped? Hoffman: For two weeks. If we move you on to Planning Commission, you wouldn't get approval. Johnson: We may be saving you money. The problems of short sightedness in the past have created some of the problems we have today. Hoffman: The connectivity is the largest issue. I assume that based on the traffic counts that you can come up with an estimate for the contribution towards Highway 265 improvements. Petrie: Jim Beavers, the City Engineer, is under the impression the applicant will have to contact the Highway Department and if they require any improvements that is what will be required. This part of 265 is not in the contract to be widened. • Minutes of a Meeting of the Subdivision Committee January 28, 1999 Page 27 Warrick: So we are look for a letter from the Highway Department. Chapman: So we're going directly to the Highway Department? Petrie: That is what the ordinance says. Johnson: You should see if they have any plans to improve this part of the Highway. Little: The ordinance says they can be assigned a cost for state highway projects. We have assigned costs and we have sent them to the Highway Department to see if they wanted anything. There have certainly been times when the Highway Department hasn't required anything. But, on Kantz Place, felt like there had to be a turn lane to get into there from Highway 45 and the Highway Department wasn't asking for that. It takes both. Hoffman: Are we comfortable with all the site distances for the street connections and they have been looked at carefully? • Little: Perry didn't look at that. I'm going to ask him to add that to his comment sheet. Jorgensen: The reason for the discrepancy between the legals is the dedication of right of way on 265. The original legal went into the right of way at one location. Also, on Township the legal for the original farm survey went into a part of the right of way along Township. There are two deviations and that's the reason. Little: You checked that? Jorgensen: Yes. Little: For all projects on State Highways, the land agent requires a warranty deed for that portion of the right of way that will be dedicated for State Highway purposes. Other than that, your subdivision plat will work for the city. At final plat, you give us the legal description. He prepares the Warranty Deed, and you sign it. Hoffman: Is there a note somewhere that the subdivision is responsible for the maintenance of the islands? Jorgensen: That is note number 3. • Little: They are also not city right of way. They are excluded from city right of way. We are not taking them by dedication. • • • Minutes of a Meeting of the Subdivision Committee January 28, 1999 Page 28 Warrick: Do they have any covenants filed for this? Little: There has to be since there is a POA. Hoffman: Have the street lights been located? Little: Yes. There is one between Lot 8 and 9. One between Lot 3 and 4. One on the southeast corner of Lot 1. One on the corner of Lot 10. One between Lot 13 and 14, 16 and 17, 19 and 20. These are the standard spacing for electric street lights. The developers are exploring the possibility of using gas street lights and we're in the process of work with Perry to determine what candle power gas lights would be necessary to get us to the same as the electric and that spacing may change. Forney. What about the accesses to the Poore and Terminella properties? Little: This reflects what is happening now. As a part of the Township project, Mrs. Poore is going to be provided a driveway off of Township by Mr. Cozart so her driveway will change. Mr. Terminella was offered the drive to Township but doesn't want it. He wants to keep his current drive. Johnson: But his drive goes to Township. Little: It does. He has another way to go. He wants this one. Jorgensen: It would be much better as you can imagine for him to go directly due south to Township through his mother in laws' property, namely the Poore's. Little: The reason it's better is because he has a low water bridge. He has a lot of trouble. He was really concerned about getting additional drainage with Kantz. Lot 45 is encumbered by an access easement that goes to Manny Terminella. Jorgensen: All of the access easement is off of Lot 45 in order to avoid encumbering the other lots. Forney: The Poore access will not effect this subdivision at all Since Terminella has problems with his access would now be the time to address that? Johnson: Where is that creek? Forney. It juts to the east of him. • • Minutes of a Meeting of the Subdivision Committee January 28, 1999 Page 29 Jorgensen: There are actually two creeks. Johnson: So the creeks run along Lot 45's boundary lines. Jorgensen: It's an island. Little: When we extend Brookbury, we would not extend it without having to stub to there. He could later on go out that way. So if he was blocked by a flood, we could go that way. Hoffman: It sounds to me like he keeping his options open for his development later on. Little: He couldn't use the access easement as public right of way. Chapman: He doesn't have enough easement to make a public road. Johnson: How is that designated? Jorgensen: Existing 15 feet gravel drive to remain -- it's a 30 feet access easement existing. Johnson: Would it be clearer and more accurate to call that a private drive? Jorgensen: The trash truck collects garage through there. Johnson: Trash pickup is a service to an individual. Forney. Should we consider trying to unencumber this developer of that access easement that creates problems. Johnson: I don't see how we can help deal with that access problem because to do it we would either have to access this property by going across Mud Creek or we would have to give access through other property that this developer doesn't own. Warrick: They aren't giving anything other than what's currently on the record as an existing easement. They are reflecting what is currently filed. Chapman: I don't have a great problem when I can call that the back of the lot. Johnson: Are we saving this tree at Lot 10? When we give a particular tree the status of this • kind of protection, it's a big tree but is it healthy so that we think it has a reasonable life expectancy? • • • Minutes of a Meeting of the Subdivision Committee January 28, 1999 Page 30 Hesse: Yes. Rutherford: In the minutes of the Technical Plat Review on page 12, you say that we have an access easement between Lots 26 and 27 for pedestrian traffic. Jorgensen: When we had to put the access in, we lost a lot. Rutherford: On the drawing you call it just an assess utility easement and also a utility easement. Where are you going to put that? Jorgensen: We have to have access to the manhole. The Parks Department wants access from the creek so at this point we don't know what it's going to be but it has to be provided as pedestrian ingress/egress. Little: Your pavement portion may only go to the manhole but the access easement needs to go on down to the back of that property line all the way down to the center line of the creek. Rogers: I talked to Dave Jorgensen the day after plat review and that's not a park access easement, that is a city access easement. Johnson: So that will be paved? Jorgensen: It hasn't been specified by Dave Jurgens as far as what we would like. Parks haven't decided what they're going to do right there. Warrick: We'll ask that you have that resolved before the Subdivision meeting. Meeting adjourned at 10:40 a.m.