Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-06-17 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, June 17, 1999, in room 111 of the City Administration, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED PP99-4: Summersby, pp410 LSD99-16: Mcllroy, pp401 LSD99-15.1: St. Louis Bread, pp174 PP99-5.1: Stonewood, pp99/60 LS99-11: Larson, pp367 LS99-12, 13, 14: Schmitt, pp298 LSD99-17: Spring Creek LSD98-12.1: Trichell Medical MEMBERS PRESENT Conrad Odom Sharon Hoover Lee Ward STAFF PRESENT Jim Beavers Tim Conklin Perry Franklin Kim Hesse Janet Johns Chuck Rutherford Dawn Warrick • ACTION TAKEN To PC 06/28/99 To PC 06/28/99 To PC 06/28/99 Tabled to SC 07/01/99 To PC 06/28/99 Approved To PC 06/28/99 Need revisions by 06/21/99 MEMBERS ABSENT Lorel Hoffman STAFF ABSENT Ron Petrie • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes June 17, 1999 Page 2 PP99-4: PRELIMINARY PLAT SUMMERSBY SUBDIVISION, PP410 This item was submitted by Dave Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of Mark Foster for property located west of Crossover Road, south of Meandering Way and north of Ridgely Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately 40.18 acres with 52 lots proposed. Dave Jorgensen and Chris Brackett were present on behalf of the project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that this project be forwarded to the full Planning Commission with a recommendation for approval contingent upon the following conditions: 1. Planning Commission determination of a waiver request for cul de sac length in excess of the 1,000 feet for hilly terrain on Montview/Whispering Oaks which is shown on the plat approximately 1,400 feet long and another waiver request for cul de sac length in excess of 500 feet for normal terrain on Amberwood which is approximately 700 feet long. Staff supports both waiver requests. 2. Applicant's participation in a City planned drainage improvement project for this area in the amount of $74,258.41. All Engineering Division comments concerning Capital Improvement Project for Boardwalk Subdivision and Manor Drive drainage must be met. 3. The acquisition of an easement on the Lewis property for the sanitary sewer and drainage extensions is required prior to the acceptance of construction plans. 4. All swales not located within the public right of way shall be private and privately maintained by the POA, HOA or similar entity. 5. Plat Review and Subdivision comments. 6. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, sidewalks, parking lots and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements. 7. Payment of parks fees in the amount of $19,500 for 52 lots at $375 per lot. • Subdivision Committee Minutes June 17, 1999 Page 3 8. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a 4 foot sidewalk with a 6 foot green space on both sides of all streets. 9. Preliminary plat approval is valid for one calendar year Committee Discussion Warrick: This is an old business item that was before the Subdivision Committee on May 13. At that point in time, the Subdivision Committee voted to table the item until City Council had an opportunity to act on the CIP drainage improvements. On June 1, 1999, City Council did act on that item and voted to go forward with the improvements in this area. This includes the Boardwalk Subdivision area. Engineering can fill us in on what those improvements actually entail. You need to determine the waiver request for the length of cul de sacs. The standard for cul de sac in hilly terrain is 1,000 feet and the Whispering Oaks/Montview Streets exceed that. The Amberwood Lane cul de sac is proposed to be extended in the future but it is proposed to be a dead end street at this time. This is normal terrain and the standard cul de sac length is 500 feet and this proposal is 700 feet. • Rutherford: Everything is fine as far as sidewalks. . • Beavers: Ron Petrie is on vacation. The cost share on the drainage is $74,258.41. Also, you have added a pipe across David and Bernice Harner's property and we will need a letter from the them saying that they agree with what you are proposing. The water line and service crossing will be treated as a main and will have a valve and a box to allow for future irrigation as requested by the water department. Across the Lewis property, my understanding is you were only able to acquire a 10 foot easement and you are showing it to be both sanitary sewer and storm pipe. We won't allow that I am aware of your problems with acquiring more easement, so we're going to ask you to make use of the existing easement in addition to this 10 foot easement you'll have to make use of that existing backyard easement over in Boardwalk Phase III. Hesse: Landscaping is fine. Ward: The minimum conditions that we need to address would include the waivers for the cul de sacs, the acquisition of the easement, and maintenance of swales. Conklin: With regard to condition one, we did receive information from the Fire Chief on whether or not that cul de sac for Whispering Oaks and Montview Drive would be appropriate and he said that he would be able to go along with this length of cul de sac as long as it was standard street width. They are proposing a 28 foot wide street so staff will support that request. We also support the request for Amberwood Lane. We understand that when the property • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes June 17, 1999 Page 4 develops to the east that a future connection can be made. Currently we are not meeting the ordinance. We recommend for that. Whispering Oaks Lane and Montview Drive even though it's 400 feet longer -- Hoover: Do we have confirmation from the Fire Department? Conklin: Yes, we have. We have a letter from Mickey Jackson saying that he could recommend that length as long as it is a standard street. The reason why they have proposed a 1,400 foot long cul de sac was due to the terrain in this area and not being able to street standards if they had to connect back to the east to Summersby Drive. Brackett: The original layout did include the connection and after we look at the profiles of this site it was safer to construct a cul de sac. Conklin: The Fire Chief has looked at it and he said he would be able to go along with the 1,400 foot cul de sac as long as it is a standard street of 28 feet in width. It is not desirable. If you connect it back down then you aren't meeting the city street standard with regard to grade at that intersection and whether or not drivers have the ability to stop. They tried to find the easiest location to meet the street standard grade and not provide any stop signs where it's steep. Ward: Where are the ingresses and egresses into this now? Conklin: They have access through Boardwalk Subdivision to the north and they have access through Ridgely Drive to the south. There are two ways in and out right now. With their proposal for this Camera's Lane to the east off of Amberwood Lane -- Ward: We're talking about 52 lots in a 40 acre subdivision. That's pretty low density. Brackett: We have worked out a 10 foot easement agreed upon by Mr. Lewis and Mr. Foster. We're waiting on approval of this to have the papers signed. That will be acquired prior to the construction. Conklin: We have discussed item 1. Regarding item 2, Mr. Beavers has indicated the amount that would be requested for them to participate in those drainage improvements. Number 3, they are working on the easement and swales. I think they are in agreement that any of the swales not located in the public right of way shall be private and privately maintained by the POA. I think we have addressed every condition. Ward: We're talking about $74,000 for the drainage improvements to be paid by this developer? • • Subdivision Committee Minutes June 17, 1999 Page 5 Warrick: $74,258.41. Beavers: That's only part of the total over $500,000 that the City is expending. Ward: That's all been approved as of the last Council meeting. Public Comment Steve Noland residing at 2451 Manor Drive was present on behalf of the project. Noland: We're concemed about the water drainage. I would like to ask Mr. Brackett to show us exactly what you're going to do behind the Bassett's, Harner's, and Noland's property. Brackett: There is a ditch running from the Broad View Subdivision along the property line and through the Bassett's and Hamer's property. That is what is currently happening. Originally we proposed a swale to pick up this water and carry it to our site and discharge into a box and then somehow discharge into their ditch. We have revised that after concerns that the swale wouldn't be adequate so now we're showing a pipe/swale combination. The pipe will be designed to carry all the water underground and discharge into the swale. There will also be a swale to catch the runoff from this subdivision and keep it from going onto the property to the south. As far as where we're going to discharge into the swale and what improvements we are going make for the swale, we're still trying to work that out. We have talked to the Harners. Now it is rock lined. We could take the rock out, put concrete in and place the rocks into the concrete to keep it from eroding further. We're trying to work this out. Conklin: You're trying to handle the water that is coming off of Shadowridge Drive? Brackett: Yes. We're going to pick up the water from Shadowridge but we will also take all the water that would be going onto this property and pick it up in a swale that is coming off of our subdivision to keep any runoff from going south. There won't be any water coming from this subdivision onto their property. Conklin: The water going into the pipe is from off site. Brackett: This is just to handle want is currently existing and being maintained in that ditch. It has maintenance problems and it's shallow in some areas and it's not working properly. Noland: So, if the swale gets plugged up, the property owner's association is going to clean it out? • Brackett: Yes. But, the water is going into a pipe. The swale is just to take the water from • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes June 17, 1999 Page 6 this proposed subdivision which will be very little. The major amount of the water will be in the pipe. If the pipe overflows, it will go into the concrete swale instead of the existing ditch. The pipe will be about 24 inches. The reason it's not as big as you might think is due to the fact that it is a steep hill. With that grade, you can carry a lot of water. We will design the pipe to handle the 100 year storm. We're looking at putting that ditch where the Bassett's and the Harrier's want it. We've met with them several times. We understand they have drainage problems now and we just want to try and fix those problem for them. This proposal, I believe, will. Noland: What are you planning on doing with the water that is coming across 265 and down to the Manor and Ridgely area? Beavers. We're paying the Highway Department to move that about 900 feet south where the City has purchased property for the highway improvements. We're going to turn it loose in that vicinity. We haven't worked out the outlet yet. Highway 265 improvements are scheduled to bid the end of this month. Noland: Are you going to do anything on Manor Drive? Beavers. That will be replaced with a new culvert as part of the improvements that were approved by the Council at their last meeting. It will be a larger. pipe. Noland: How will that impact the property on the south side of Manor? Beavers: They are going to get more water because this under sized pipe caused the Hamer property to act a detention pond. We're hoping that the Milholland design of this pipe will specifically reduce the velocity of this water. Noland: The ditch on the east side of Steve Noland's property on Ridgely, will that be improved any? Beavers: No. Noland: And the cost of the improvements that the highway is making relieving some of the pressure on that ditch? Beavers: Right. All that water that crosses 265 will go south. The city is going to have to spend between $4 and $4.5 million to relocate the water and sewer lines with the highway widening. Mr. Noland presented pictures of the subject area after a 6 inch rain. • • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes June 17, 1999 Page 7 Marynm Bassett, residing at 2210 Manor Drive was present to address the committee. Bassett: I would like to preface this by saying that we have had meetings with the developer and the engineers. We're doing our dead level best to work out something. As I said last time, I would like for this to be over before I die but it's getting close. It's been going on forever. The reason for our concern is that every time this addition has gone before you, it has been in three phases. Phase 3 has always been conveniently left out to until last because this is what we call an area that is extremely frail. I'll explain why. We want to get this worked out. We wanted to get back with them. Mrs. Harner has had a lot of family and personal problems. Mr. Noland has been to the City Engineer to get some answers. Beavers: He called and said he couldn't make the meeting. Bassett: We've had some problems at the last. What happens here is because of what is above us. With each addition it's gotten worse. Then the city ran a sewer line behind us. We had another big project. We keep getting more water and the ditch gets stopped up with debris and mud. These are some of the reasons why we are leery. This is my property with the big "X". This is what the swale is suppose to catch. All of this water, we have been informed, . comes through this drain. It may and it may not. When this is done up here, there are going to have to be some walls. They will have to haveretaining walls. The houses on Shadowridge are going to come tumbling down like what is happening over on Highway 45. I can remember the problems with that one. I've been living here longer than some of these people have been alive. This is nothing against the engineers. It's nothing against the people that are educated to do this. It's like a doctor telling me I have a disease. They tell me I have this and this and they can cure it. So when they find out I have diabetes and all these other things, it turns things around. That's what I'm talking about being fragile. My property sits here. I'm getting water from several directions. The other thing that makes me leery is in the past 2 weeks, we now have a ditch running down the side of the private PUD and what they tell me is going to be nothing but a seepage drain. I've been up there during the rain. We're getting water off that property. It's inconceivable to me that seepage over there on that side of the street, which is half a football field length over to where it's flooding is hard for me to reconcile. They have been able to build right up to the property line because it's a PUD. There used to be a ditch between that property and Carl Collier's and a nice, green, lovely lawn. If you'll look at what we've been doing for 37 years, I have 6 ditches that I have left open across my property. Dr. Noland has left greenery and trees. When this happens, we're going to have 60 feet at the back of our property that is going to have to go into infrastructure, drainage, swales, and all that. I'm telling you we're worried about this. That is why it's taking so long to work out. Ours are the only 2 pieces of property throughout this whole thing where all this water is going to drain. The velocity of it scares me. What we're trying to do is take long enough to get engineers to show us that this will be kept cleaned out. I will be at the Planning Commission meeting to say what my problems are because I have to have protection down the road. What happens is when the pipe gets stopped up and the • Subdivision Committee Minutes June 17, 1999 Page 8 detention fails, the problem is always somebody elses. If they don't clean out the swale, my only option is to sue my neighbor. If there is anything in this wide world, and I live in a family of 5 lawyers, if there is anything I don't want, it's a lawsuit. That is why I'm here and they're not here. I don't like lawsuits. I'm telling you that after 30 something years, if it takes it, I'll have to do it. I can tell you being married to an attorney, the biggest problem you've got -- don't shoot somebody's dog and don't get in a property line dispute. It absolutely creates havoc. What I'm saying is this is fragile. Ms. Harner's house is filled with artifacts. Sitting at the back of my property is utilities. We have the only 2 houses in this whole area that the City allowed a sewer drain to be put in even though I stood out there and said it's too high. We're the only 2 people in this whole area that cannot tie onto the sewer. Therefore, we have septic tanks. Do you know what flooding water will do to a septic tank? At the back of my lot, I have two 8 foot by 6 foot holes tied in with my septic tank filled with gravel, sand, and silt. I'm telling you when the rains come across there and sits and it hits the underground frame, I've got problems. I have water running across my yard for 10 days after a light rain. Ms. Bassett presented numerous pictures of the drainage problems she is experiencing. I have repaired the city street. It's my understanding that you don't turn your water out on • somebody else. There is a ditch at the back of my property and there is a utility pole that I have tried for 7 years to get them to do something about it. It's in the middle of the drainage ditch all the way down. I can't get a private contractor to touch it because it's a SWEPCO electric pole. They came in and trimmed the trees, left the cuttings in the ditch and left. The ditch is stopped up and I'm dealing with that now. I spend every spring in this ditch taking out other people's leaves. It's beyond the point of my wanting to mess with it. They used to shoot the water off of Mt. Sequoyah when it was undeveloped. It's been a good place for people to go and unload trash This could work but you can't fool mother nature and that's what bothers me. This is so fragile. We want to work this out but we need assurances that somebody is going to keep the ditch clean and the swale clean. There was a time when neighbor helped neighbor. I've had enough experience lately that I know this generation is not the way things used to be. It's my problem not theirs. That's what I get every time. It's your problem not mine. If it's my ditch, why can't I block it off at the top and let the water drain on someone else. That's not the way it works. It bothers me that this whole thing is going to drain across my property and the Harner's property. They're still hassling over right of way on level property. We need some time and some help so we can be sure. We want to write down the conditions under which we think that we could feel like we're safe to go before the Planning Commission. When we get there, we want it all signed, sealed, and delivered, and nobody does any arguing at the Planning Commission. I'd rather not. We're going to need some time to do this. The other thing that worries me is the pipe under Manor Drive which is 3/4 filled with debris. Only 1/4 of it allows any flow. I wouldn't think that is Bemise Hamer's responsibility. What happens is the water • draining through here is full of debris and it collects in the pipe. It's hard to keep clean. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes June 17, 1999 Page 9 Jeanette Miller, residing on Shadowridge was present. Miller: I want to state that we have a lot of drainage that comes down off of Shadowridge that goes into the area. Odom: Are you on lot 19? Miller: Yes. My neighbors, the Scott's live on lot 18. I've seen the water. It's continues to drain off this hillside. Although you say the density is low, I think for a hillside when you consider the trees that we're going to lose, that drainage is going to present a problem. We have done drainage around our house on both sides and the water just keeps coming. Remise Hamer, residing at 2400 Manor Drive, was present. Hamer: I feel like we need more time to get this worked out. I think we can work it out. I want to thank Ms. Bassett for everything she's done for me. Ward: Do you have any questions for the engineers? Harner. I am concerned about the ditch and rocky terrain and how that might affect the foundation on my house that is close by. Ward: How long have you lived there? Hamer: I've lived there about 35 years. Ward: Have there always been drainage problems down through there? Hamer: We've always had some problems but we've been able to take of them. Ward: Is it worse now that it used to be? Harner: Yes. Odom. It looks like a lot of work has been done but it sounds like there are still some unanswered questions. I think they can be answered. Brackett: We are fully aware of all the drainage problems. We have had many meetings. Like Ms. Bassett, we're doing everything we can. We feel these issues are construction issues not so much the planning. We don't have a problem with it being part of the approval. I'm sure Jim wouldn't have a problem saying that the plans won't be approved until these issues are • Subdivision Committee Minutes June 17, 1999 Page 10 resolved. We don't feel delaying this project would be beneficial. We have every intention of working this out and we know that we have to. We can't dump water onto someone if there is still a problem. I believe we can work this out. I have no doubt in my mind it can be worked out. We're trying to. Ward: When this project is finished, it is your opinion that the drainage conditions will be greatly improved. Brackett: Greatly improved. The ditch is currently taking on much of the Broadview Subdivision. The water between lot 18 and 19 will be picked up and put in drainage for the subdivision. That will go through the new box culvert in Boardwalk. That will lessen quite a bit of the problem. This is draining into the system that collects water off the streets. After this development is done, there will be less or perhaps the same amount of water in that ditch. We've submitted the calculations to engineering and they have reviewed them. This can be worked out and it will be worked out before this subdivision goes in. Please don't table this again. Beavers: First, that is the approach we tried on this project last time, that we would work it out. The adjacent property owners are not comfortablewith that and neither was the Council. • I'd like to go on record saying that I don't support leaving it up for us to workout later. I think it all should be worked out before the plan is approved. I'm very concerned and I expressed this to • Ron, this water coming down the property line onto the Hamer's, that is going to be like ajet. If you don't take care of the velocity, that is going to wash out a tremendous hole. I know that is a construction item but we are probably going to need a large dissipator. I think that should be worked out in advance. I do believe they can and will do it. We tried this 2 years ago and it didn't fly with the Council and I don't see any reason to try it now Also, you are diverting water that used to flow south to the north into that pond. Have you analyzed that? Brackett: Yes. Bassett: Do you think a 2 foot pipe is going to carry that water down through there when the existing is 6 feet by 7 feet? Beavers: I don't know. I have not looked at the calculations. If you can get the water into it, it will carry it. I don't know if you can get it into it. You may have to have a very large pipe. With that small pipe, you'll end up with tremendous velocity. Conklin: You're looking that if the Committee decides to table this until their next meeting that Mr. Brackett would design some type of structure to handle the velocity? • Beavers: The Drainage Ordinance Manual says that you can require additional information as necessary. I would like to see that. A few years ago, no one could make it work. I think they • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes June 17, 1999 Page 11 can but the adjacent property owners want some proof of that. I would, too. Especially if I had the Harner's property where all the water is going to be tumed loose. Conklin: This would go along with the request for Ms. Hamer giving approval for that improvement to be on her property? Beavers: Yes. They need to design it and pipe it to extend further. Bassett: What was the reason that it couldn't be taken all the way east and diverted? Brackett: If you go east then you are going to be discharging into the ditch that already has more problems with water from 265. We want to get it into this new culvert that the City is improving. Bassett: It seems to be that the bulk of the money for infrastructure has been spent over in Boardwalk. Brackett: It is. Bassett: And nothing except one culvert has been put in our section which is even more fragile. The reason they are putting it in over there is because it was done wrong to begin with. We haven't had any'relief at all back here. Jorgensen: You asked about the expenditure that is going into Boardwalk versus what is going to the south. As you probably are aware, there is a pretty good percentage of the amount of water that comes off this property is draining to the northeast direction toward Boardwalk. The amount of money that is being spent in the area is proportionate to the amount of drainage that goes in that direction. Dollarwise, I don't know exactly what that amount is but we're talking about at least $350,000 whereas the amount of money that's being spent on the drainage crossing at Manor Drive is $18,000 to $20,000 to the pipe crossing Manor Drive which is inadequate. The reason for that is the amount of flow that comes in your direction is simply not there although it's concentrated when you think about the amount of water that goes in a northeasterly direction and compare the two. Bassett: If you look at your topography map, I think you can see the number of ditches running south. I met with all these people in Boardwalk and we've walked that property. There is a drainage problem. The other problem was that it was on the streets. Jorgensen: Everybody know that water runs down hill and in this case is runs right between your property and the Harpers. Our offer is simply to do whatever you want us to do. Pipe it. Ditch it. Natural rock. It doesn't matter. All we're trying to do is do whatever you want. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes June 17, 1999 Page 12 Bassett: We want assurance that if this is put in that it is adequate and that is will stay unstopped. I want you to tell me that you're going to maintain all this. We need the engineers to assure us. We need maintenance to tell us it will stay clear. We need something that we have never had before because we cannot take anymore water. The first one went directly by the drainage ordinance. We could say that you can't add more water to my property or the Harners because of the drainage ordinance. Brackett: We're not adding any water. It will be the same water or less, whether you believe it or not. Noland: You take the trees away and you add water. Brackett: No. We're taking away a lot of the drainage area that drains that way. We are catching it. There will be less water. We want to work this out Jorgensen: We're willing to meet with you another 5 times in addition to the other however many times we met. We're totally in agreement. We just don't want to be held hostage for the next 10 months. Bassett: We don't want to be held hostage the rest of our lives. Jorgensen: I agree. No matter how many meetings we have, there is always going to be the drainage problem. We'll do whatever you want to do. Bassett: This science of water is the most inexact science. We want assurances. Beavers. We're concerned with maintenance, too. I don't know what to tell you. Engineering has very little influence over maintenance. Regarding the water coming down Meandering Way, the improvements that the City is doing doesn't involve the water coming down that. We're picking that water up after it gets down to the level area. Committee Discussion Ward: How long will it take you to design the system? Brackett: I could design it. We aren't at the design stage, yet. We still have to work out how Ms. Hamer would like that done, so I know where they want the pipe and where they don't want pipe. That is the time issue. Jorgensen: We could have that done next week. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes June 17, 1999 Page 13 Ward: This is strictly a preliminary plat. This is not a final plat. Odom: I don't want to delay a project but I don't know what questions need to be answered before it goes forward. Sounds like the city staff wants answers to some questions on water velocity. I don't know if those can be addressed before the Planning Commission or not. It sounds like the neighbors want to meet again with the engineers. I think that can be done. Hoover: What do we have in the way of a response from the fire chief? Warrick: I spoke with him on the phone and he was fine with the length of the cul de sac so long as they were wide enough for his truck to make the radius. He would prefer a connection to Shadowridge but that is prohibited by ordinance. MOTION Mr. Odom made a motion to forward this to the Planning Commission and by the 24th, we should know whether or not they have had time to meet and come to an agreement and whether or not Mr. Beavers has been satisfied with the questions he had regarding water velocity. If these have not been done, it will be pulled from our agenda. Ms. Hoover seconded the motion. Mr. Ward concurred and stated that they recommend the approval of the cul de sac waivers. • • Subdivision Committee Minutes June 17, 1999 Page 14 LSD99-16: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT MCILROY BANK AND TRUST, pp401 This item was submitted by Chris Parton of Crafton, Tull and Associates on behalf of Mcllroy Bank and Trust for property located at the northeast corner of Wedington Road and Salem Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 3 36 acres. Chris Parton, Stan Green, and Gary Head were present on behalf of the project. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval contingent upon the following conditions being met: 1. The entrance/exit off of Wedington Drive should be revised to be a right-in/right-out only configuration to reduce traffic conflict. 2. Assessment for Wedington widening project of $16,403.31 for the frontage along Wedington Drive due prior to the issuance of the building permit. The estimate is based upon 263 feet offrontage by 14 feet in width times $4.455 per square foot. The applicant was notified at plat review that he could propose an alternate estimate. No alternate has been proposed. 3. Assessment for the construction of a 6 foot sidewalk along Wedington Drive in the amount of $3,945 due prior to the issuance of the building permit. The estimate is based upon 263 feet offrontage by 6 feet in width times $2.50 per square foot. 4. Assessment for the construction of a sanitary sewer force main in the Hamestring Creek Basin in the amount of $1,723.20 due prior to the issuance of the building permit. This fee is equivalent to $200 per R-1 residential lot. 5. Assessment for future improvements to Salem Road and Shiloh Drive in the amount of $5,040 due prior to the issuance of the building permit. This fee is based upon a surcharge of 51,500 per acre times 3.36 acres. 6. Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards ordinance. 7. All plat review and subdivision comments. • 8. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculation for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, sidewalks, parking lots and tree preservation. The • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes June 17, 1999 Page 15 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. 9. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a 6 foot sidewalk with a minimum 10 foot green space along Salem Road and payment of an assessment for required sidewalk along Wedington Drive which is to be installed as a part of the widening project. 10. Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year. 11. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits b . Separate easement plat for this project c. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Committee Discussion Warrick: You considered this project at the June 3, 1999 meeting. The project was forwarded by the Subdivision Committee to the Planning Commission; however there were concerns about access and circulation on site. The applicant was willing to work with staff and bring it back to the Subdivision Committee to work out these issues and that is why it's back here before you today. Rutherford: I had asked them to include the green space between the sidewalk and Salem Road and they have done that and everything else looks the same. Hesse: During plat review, I requested additional screening and that has been included. Public Comment Bob Harlan, a resident of Fayetteville, spoke in opposition to the project. Committee Discussion Parton: The biggest problem with the 5 or 6 conditions is the first one that being a right in/right out only off Wedington Road. During the other meetings, there were genuine concerns voiced about this entrance off of Wedington Road and possible conflicts. We met with the • • Subdivision Committee Minutes June 17, 1999 Page 16 owners, Stan Green and Gary Head, and talked about a way to possibly eliminate those conflicts for people entering and leaving the development and it was agreed that the best way to do that would be to move the entrance to the west approximately 50 to 55 feet to line up with the bank drive through lane. Head: The first question I have is -- I'm not aware of any right turn only places in the City of Fayetteville. Are we planning on making right turn only all the way out to the bypass? Conklin: The reason the recommendation was right in/right out was that the location near the intersection of Salem Road and Wedington Drive and with cars backing up during the red light that cars would not be able to get out and the cars would be stacking up in here also. We didn't think it was desirable to have cars turning left that close to that intersection. Warrick: The Planning Commission approved a similar configuration near the intersection of Township and College for the Walgreens Pharmacy that is supposed to go in at that location with the right in right out configuration only in close proximity to that intersection. Conklin: We prefer people turning left to go out to Salem Road and use the light. Head: A right turn only economically will make the whole.side of that center impossible to rent. You can't do that. If you're going to make that right turn only, you have to make everybody right turn only all the way back to the light. The other corner has a bank on it and they are not left turn only. I see that as a mass disadvantage to this property trying to require something on this property that we didn't require on a competitor 100 yards away. Conklin: The bank to the west only has one curb cut onto Highway 16. Warrick: That is for the entire development for the bank and 10 acres of commercial. Odom: Not being able to turn left onto Wedington Drive you said makes a problem for renting property over here? Head: If you're down on the very east -- this property has frontage on both sides. We assume that we have cut outs that the rest of this property is going to develop all the way back to the east. You will have to come all the way around to get and out. This will alleviate when these cut outs across adjoining property eventually access. Early in the morning, before 8:30 and afternoons after about 6:30, there is heavy traffic. Last night I was out there at 9:00 and you could have turned around. That's being widened to 5 lanes. The highway department doesn't have a problem with it and we don't think you should either. • Green: Our preference was what you originally looked at. We thought that reduced the • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes June 17, 1999 Page 17 problem with left turns out across Wedington and we like that better and we felt like the consequence on the parking lot was minimal. We moved it down to try and address the concerns that were raised at the last meeting. Head: I don't know how you say no left turns because someone is going to turn left if they want to anyway. You know that. Hoover: I was at the last Subdivision meeting and we asked for a statement from Paul Libertini on this whole intersection and I don't think we've seen that. Beavers: Are you talking about the parking lot? Hoover: Our whole concern was this is a dangerous situation going out onto an existing -- Beavers: Ron and Paul met and I'm not sure what they came up with. Conklin: We had this going to the Planning Commission and prior to agenda session, our recommendation was denial based on the internal circulation and the curb cut I talked to the client's engineer and asked if we could get this worked out at Subdivision Committee. I didn't want to spend an hour at Planning Commission trying to figure out whether or not it needed to be at some location or right in/right out. He reviewed it and the original one he did not feel would work and he would not recommend this development. This one is better. It's still not perfect. We talked about it and we looked at possibly one thing we could do to make it work better and that was the right in and right out and staff could support that. Beavers: My position with Paul is that he is the staff engineer who works for me and we are available to answer any questions you have. He got with Ron and I think -- it wasn't clear that we needed anything in writing. Circulation inside the parking lot is not necessarily something that engineering -- Hoover: I think our concern that this was going to be a dangerous situation going out onto Wedington. Beavers: Chris, did you meet with Ron? Parton: We spoke only over the phone with regard to that. Beavers: I do know that Ron and Paul met. Hoover: Would turning left be dangerous? • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes June 17, 1999 Page 18 Conklin: We met on Monday and talked about it. We thought that because of the location and the intersection at the light that right in/right out would be preferred. Green: Was that part of the recommendation you made the first time? Conklin: The recommendation to the Planning Commission was to deny the project. Green: Because of the location? Conklin: We met Monday and discussed that yes, this is a better location for the curb cut. You have 40 feet of throat length for the cars to stack up when they are turning; however, making a left hand turn in or out of this at this location near the intersection still wasn't desirable and that we preferred to see it right in/right out. Is that what you recalled from the meeting on Monday? Parton: Yes. You asked that we consider that and I said I would relay that to the developers. Hoover: We also had discussion about the drive through lane. Did you make that wider? Parton: We added a 10 foot wide drive through lane divided by a raised curb. Conklin: The purpose of the drive through lane is -- Head. If we had a Burger King or somebody that may want a drive in -- if we don't lease to someone like that this is a moot point. The concern was getting somebody run over and we put a raised curb to delineate between traffic so we don't have that concern. Conklin: Our engineering division looked at that and they thought that would work. Hoover: Has solid waste seen this? Is one dumpster for the entire project normal? Conklin: They did review the large scale development. Warrick: I'm not aware of any problems. This is speculative so they have to consider it as a C-2 commercial property. Odom: Which is the highest in waste? Hoover: Would they have to add another dumpster? Conklin: In the future, if there is a restaurant in there, I think solid waste can work with the • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes June 17, 1999 Page 19 developer and -- Head: The worst thing we could have is to have trash collecting all over the property. We're going to take care of it however. Without knowing what's going in there it is difficult to plan for it. Warrick: We would be made aware of a restaurant going into one of these spaces when they requested a building permit for a tenant finish out. At that point in time, we would know what type of considerations to apply to the space. It goes through Inspections and it goes through Planning. They do have room for additional dumpsters. I don't foresee that being a major problem. I think they are aware that there is the possibility that they would have to add more. Odom: Do you have any problems with the contributions? Head: The only problem we have is the right in/right out. Anytime you restrict flow, you change the property economically. You are from here and you know what the boulevard between here and Springdale has done before and after restricted access. That is an undue burden for us to have to bear Everybody from this location to the intersection should be the same and that will never develop if that is the case. Ward: What about the commercial design standards? Head• It's brick, split face block, metal roof, and glass. Similar to Joyce Street. We didn't do as much stucco. Hoover: Do you have an elevation of the back? Odom: I think it meets the standards. Ward: My personal thoughts on the right in/right out, is that certain times of the day that turning left out of the bank or a restaurant, would be hard to do. But, there are certain times of the day that would be the best way to get out. I think they should have an option. I think that in the future, cross access will come to pass and it will be much easier. This is a different situation from College and Township. Salem Road doesn't go further south. It basically dead ends. Township goes through North College and carries 31,000 cars per day. The right in/right out put in Walgreens was very important. It really stacks up there all day long and most of the night. I'm not opposed to having left turns at this location and in the future there will be ways to get out of there. People are going to go out the easiest way they can. Beavers: Chris, I think you had asked Sid to make a change to the waterline plans to incorporate some special back fill on our new waterline across this property. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes June 17, 1999 Page 20 Parton: Yes. Beavers: If you do that, we will anticipate sending the bill to that to the developer. MOTION Ms. Hoover made a motion to move this forward to the Planning Commission subject to the recommendations by staff. Mr. Odom seconded the motion. Mr. Ward concurred. • • Subdivision Committee Minutes June 17, 1999 Page 21 LSD99-15 10• LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT ST. LOUIS BREAD COMPANY, PP 174 This item was submitted by Chris Parton of Crafton, Tull and Associates on behalf of the St. Louis Bread Company for property located at the northeast corner of Front Street and Sain Street. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 0.918 acres. Chris Parton and Bryon Hanna were present on behalf of the project. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards including signage. 2. Removal of landscaping through the entrance off of Sain St. 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 lot 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. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a 6 foot sidewalk adjacent to the curb, but behind the approaches through the driveways on both Front and Sain Street. 6. Installation of a street light at the corner of Front St. and Sain St. Large Scale Development approval is valid for one calendar year. 8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits b. Separate easement plat for this project c. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City. • 9. Removal of the curb line through the access off of Sain St. • Subdivision Committee Minutes June 17, 1999 Page 22 10. Add internal landscaping in parking lot facing Sain St. 11. Agreement from Southwestem Energy and preliminary ditch construction required prior to construction plans. Committee Discussion Warrick: This project was at Plat Review on June 2, 1999. This is for a restaurant. You have seen the project in the past as a conditional use request for additional parking. On April 26, 1999, you approved a request for a total of 60 parking spaces which is depicted in the large scale plan before you. This property was exempted from the Design Overlay District by the city planner. At Plat Review, staff expressed the desire to save as many of the existing trees. These are actually in the city right of way. The applicant has tried to develop around those as best they can. Staff has recommended that the sidewalk be placed adjacent to the curb so the trees can be saved. A property line adjustment is in the works for this. Once the large scale is approved, the property line adjustment will be handled administratively so they can tack on that small property to the east of this site. • Rutherford: On the driveway off of Sain Street, you left the curb line through the sidewalk. Hesse: For interior parking lot requirements, what we show here is what is required for exterior parking lot requirements. You will need a couple of trees and planters for the parking lot. You could to a 6 foot island for a small trees but an 8 foot island would be preferable. If you could provide a 10 by 20 foot space, you could go with 1 per 15 spaces. Conklin: At the very end of that parking stall to the east would be a good location. That would provide protection for that car. Hesse: I am concerned with the grading but we can work that out. You're still showing quite a bit of fill. I went to look at the Sycamore tree. Typically Sycamores are not good next to this kind of development. If there was any disease or insect problems I didn't see it. We thought this might have been filled over when the street was built. If that is the case, it doesn't appear that way. It's in good shape and we can probably save it. Conklin: It's my understanding that they are changing names from Panera to St. Louis Bread. That is what they told me. Beavers: Ron has asked for additional information on drainage at plat review and that still has not been provided. Ron is willing to work with you and if we don't get that by early next week, we will recommend that you table this project. Subdivision Committee Minutes June 17, 1999 Page 23 Parton: It was my understanding that we could just make a deal with Arkansas Western Gas that we can construct a ditch along the west property line of Lot 11 and that would be sufficient. Beavers: We need to have that agreement before Planning Commission approval. Parton: We submitted an agreement. We submitted a letter from Arkansas Western Gas to the city after we turned our revisions back in. Beavers: You haven't submitted any kind of preliminary plan for the ditch. Parton: I wasn't aware that it needed one or I would have done that. Beavers: You need to get with Ron early next week. Ward: Is this coming to full Planning Commission? Conklin: That would be on the 24th. Warrick: The 24th is agenda session. We would need information by Monday at 10:00 a.m. to take to the agenda session on Thursday. We wouldn't have time to write our reports if we just got that information on Thursday. The project, to my knowledge, is not requesting approval at this level. Beavers: The only downstream property owner is the gas company. Ward: So we could approve this here and now? Conklin: That's correct. One of the issues that I would like to bring up is that I exempted this lot from the design overlay district requirements and that letter is attached in your packet explaining why I did exempt them. I want to make sure that the committee is clear that I did not make a decision on whether or not they have a pole sign or a monument sign. I recommended that they install a monument sign on this lot. This is an issue that will have to be addressed here today as to whether or not a monument sign should be placed on this property. They are planning a pole sign as reflected in the elevation. The text on the sign will be changed to St. Louis Bread Company. Hanna: It will be Panera Bread after a time. They are changing all the names to Panera Bread on a corporate level. When Tulsa and southwest Missouri change, we will change, too. Ward: What is the height of the sign? • • Subdivision Committee Minutes June 17, 1999 Page 24 Conklin: The height is 35 feet. The square footage is 65 square feet plus or minus. 30 feet is our maximum height for a pole sign under our sign ordinance. This one will have to be lowered. It is not able to be approved on this elevation. Odom: I need to drive out there and look at it but I can't remember any other pole signs out there on any of those other restaurants. Conklin: I did an inventory. There is a monument sign for Merrill Lynch at the southwest corner of Millsap and College. The Bank of Arkansas at Millsap and College at the northeast corner does not have a sign other than a directional sign for the tellers. Coldwell Banker has a monument sign at Millsap and College at the northwest corner. First Federal has a pole sign. They are just south of Bank of Arkansas. Down the street, running east on Millsap, Remax and Bank of Arkansas Mortgage have a wooden sign with 2 posts at 8 to 10 feet tall. It is not your typical pole sign. Arkansas Western Gas has a monument sign. The development directly to the north of this, Country Square Casuals doesn't have any pole sign. LaPetite child care has a monument sign. Kisor's has a pole sign and then everything north of Mud Creek has pole signs. We required a monument sign for Circuit City. Nelson's Funeral Home has a monument sign. First Security Bank has a monument sign. There are both types of signs out there. We have required in the recent past for people to put monument signs in their developments. That is one of the reasons I recommended for a monument sign. Hoover: Why is this exempted from the overlay district? Conklin: This development was part of a lot split that created 4 lots in 1991. By 1994, all three lots north of this site were developed. This site has frontage on 2 streets. The 25 foot green space area that was required in front of the parking lot pretty much eliminated the ability for them to provide the 60 parking spaces. Also, we are requesting additional right of way along Front Street and with that additional right of way, I believe that was another 10 to 15 feet, it pretty much would not allow this restaurant to be built on this property. It's somewhat unique that it does have 2 fronts. Alett Little did exempt the one lot on Wimberly and Futrall with a similar situation down there with the 2 fronts. With the commercial design standards now and right of way requirements, we do have the 15 feet landscaping between the new front property line and the parking lot and the additional right of way in between there, you have a fairly large area, probably 30 feet left along Front Street. It was difficult to develop because it was developed to the north and you have streets on 2 sides. Ward: Will the big Sycamore tree cut off visibility? Conklin: It would be somewhat difficult. I'm not sure where the pole sign is proposed. • You have existing trees and they are mainly Bradford pear trees and then along Front Street between College and Front, there is another row of trees. You have 2 sets of trees there. I was • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes June 17, 1999 Page 25 just trying to be consist with what other signs had been built in this area and what we have been doing in the past which are monument signs in this area. To answer your question, it's not the most visible site. Hoover: Could they put a monument sign close to Front Street? Conklin: We recommend that within 10 feet of the new right of way. Warrick: It would be in front of the parking. Odom: If you were agreeable to a monument sign we could approve this now. Parton: Obviously the client would like to have a pole sign for visibility concerns. There is a very large Sycamore tree and the existing trees along Sain and Front Street. Those trees could very well prohibit that monument sign from ever being seen. This building is going to sit down probably 6 or 7 feet below the street. We feel like a pole sign is necessary. Warrick: How far is your building from where you have your signage proposed? Parton: I can't tell you. Conklin: If you could give us an idea because it's pretty close to your building with a pole sign. Parton: 17 feet. Ward: What size pole sign would be allowable? Conklin: 30 feet. For example, Nelms went with the tower type structure and eventually they could increase that and use a wall sign. That's something this applicant must consider. Ward: I don't have a problem with the pole sign but I think the Planning Commission should make the final determination on that. MOTION Mr. Odom made a motion to forward the project to the Planning Commission subject to the staff conditions. Ms. Hoover seconded the motion. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes June 17, 1999 Page 26 Mr. Ward concurred. • Subdivision Committee Minutes June 17, 1999 Page 27 PP99-5.1: PRELIMINARY PLAT STONEWOOD SUBDIVISION, PP99/60 This project was submitted by Glenn Carter on behalf of Mark Foster 3786 North Crossover Road. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Density Residential and contains approximately 57.23 acres with 119 Glenn Carter and Kevin Hodges were present on behalf of the project. Staff Recommendation for property located at Office, and R-1, Low lots proposed. Staff recommends forwarding this project to the full Planning Commission with recommendation for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The POA or similar entity shall be responsible for maintenance within all designated green space areas. 2. Sight distance calculations must be approved by the City Engineer and Traffic division. • These have been submitted and will be reviewed prior to the June 28, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. • The off site utility easement for the proposed water line connection (20 feet wide) must be obtained from the adjacent property owners prior to the submittal of construction plans for the development. 4. Truck access shall be provided to all manholes. 5. Plat review and Subdivision comments. 6. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, sidewalks, parking lot, 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. 7. Payment of parks fees in the amount of $44,625 for 119 lots at $375 per lot. 8. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 6 foot sidewalk with a minimum 10 foot green space along Highway 265, for local streets (50 feet right of way) a minimum 4 foot sidewalk with a minimum 6 foot green space on both sides of the streets and for residential streets (40 feet right of way) a minimum 4 foot • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes June 17, 1999 Page 28 sidewalk with a minimum 5 foot green space on one side of the street. 9. Preliminary plat approval is valid for one calendar year. Committee Discussion Warrick: The Planning Commission has seen this property not too terribly long ago in the form of a rezoning request. The first 14 lots are zoned R -O and the remainder 102 lots are zoned R-1. The applicant proposes a single family subdivision Connections to the east are being provided for future street extensions. This was heard at the Plat Review meeting on June 2nd. At that meeting, we discussed the fact that City Council voted to accept money in lieu of park land dedication. The parks fee total $44,625. We also discussed sight distance issues, the different sizes of streets, rights of way, flood plain, and there were quite a few engineering issues for this site as well. Beavers: I'm having trouble hearing over the fan. We have a lot of issues. I would like to go through all of them. In advance, I don't feel like the submitted information meets the requirements of the ordinance or the information requested at plat review. I will recommend that you table this development. The street layout does not conform to the street standards. We have not received any requests for waivers. Ron thinks that there are 7 waivers required for this street layout. These waivers have to do with the reverse curves and actual curve lengths. I can't understand lot 42 and the way the curve was designed. Between lots 18 and 26, you have -- Hodges: 42, 29 and 30? Beavers: Yes. Hodges: That's to slow down the traffic so it wasn't a straight shot. Beavers: If you want to submit a waiver for that, Planning Commission can deal with it but that's a violation of our street standards. That's what all of these are. You've taken the opinion that you're going to put in curvy street to slow down traffic which is not what our standards dictate. There's a similar situation at the front of lots 3 through 9. You're showing curvy streets. Lots 11 through 12, you're showing a couple of double curves in there. If the purpose is to slow down traffic, you have to balance that with other issues. We need those specific waivers to consider. It's my understanding that Ron asked for that at Plat Review. On the water line crossing, we will require all crossings to be treated as mains. They will have valves and valve boxes. There will be 2 inch mains at every street corner. We need some off site easements for water and sewer and they do not affect your approval at this level but they will be required prior to construction plan approval. You have a lift station that is shown in the floodway. We'll want that moved and we'll need an analysis of the receiving station. We need to know the impact on • Subdivision Committee Minutes June 17, 1999 Page 29 the plant that you're pumping to. It very easily could be that you have to rebuild that to receive sewer. Hodges: On the water valves, we put those in and it didn't show up very well. Beavers: These lots that are in the flood plain, do they have to be a minimum size? Conklin: Some of them are all in the flood plain. You need 6,000 square feet outside the flood plain for buildable area. I don't see that on lots 115, 114, 116, 117, 118, 119, and 81. I see flood way and you have the 100 year flood plain calculated. Hodges: That's the flood way? Conklin: It's one acre minimum lot size if you have your lot in the flood plain. If you want something less than an acre, you have to have 6,000 square foot outside the 100 year flood plain. Carter: By outside the flood plain, do we take that to mean 2 feet above the -- • Conklin: I mean that the ground elevation is above the 100 year flood plain elevation for 6,000 square feet for buildable area. The idea is to get the house built outside the flood plain. Carter: We plan to do that. Conklin: Are you planning on filling them? Carter: Yes. Conklin: Is that reflected in your preliminary grading? Beavers: That's real kicker in tabling this. The drainage report did not reflect information concerning the existing culvert on 265 and whether it could handle the existing flow. He did receive some information but not the information on the culvert. Get with Ron next week. I think the property immediately east of here is coming in for development as soon as this one is approved. I bring that up for the Planning Commission to consider whether one of these streets should be a collector. The grading plan is required by ordinance to be scaled at 1 inch to 50 feet and it must show the proposed grading. That was requested at Plat Review. We have a plat at 1 inch to 100 feet that shows the existing grade but no proposed grade and this cannot be reviewed. MOTION • Mr. Odom made a motion to table the project. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes June 17, 1999 Page 30 Ms. Hoover seconded the motion. Mr. Ward concurred. • • Subdivision Committee Minutes June 17, 1999 Page 31 LS99-11: LOT SPLIT LARSON, PP367 This item was submitted by Julia M. Larson for property located at 231 West Ash Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately 0.90 acres. The request is to split the property into 2 tracts of approximately 0.32 acres and 0.58 acres. Julia Larson was present on behalf of the lot split. Staff Recommendation 1. Payment of parks fees in the amount of $375 prior to filing the deed creating the additional residential lots. 2. Plat Review and Subdivision comments. 3. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, street, sidewalks, parking Tots 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. 4. Sidewalk construction is not required in this location due to existing trees and utilities. 5. Only single family homes will be permitted per the tandem lot requirements. Committee Discussion Warrick: This does need to go forward to the Planning Commission. The request in this case would create a tandem lot which needs to be considered as a conditional use. That application has been turned in and is set to go to the same meeting as this if there are no problems today. Conklin: A tandem lot is required to have a 25 foot wide access easement or an actual part of the lot which they are showing. It is meeting the ordinance requirement with regard to the tandem lot. They are restricted to a single family home only. Public Comments None • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes June 17, 1999 Page 32 MOTION Mr. Odom made a motion to forward the request to the full Planning Commission. Ms. Hoover seconded the motion. Mr. Ward concurred. • • Subdivision Committee Minutes June 17, 1999 Page 33 LS99-12, 13, 14: LOT SPLITS SCHMITT, PP298 This item was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of Robert Schmitt of RNS Enterprises for property located south of Highway 45 and east of Greenhaw Lane This property is in the planning growth area and contains approximately 6.45 acres. The request is to split the property into 4 tract of 1.22 acres, 1.58 acres, 1.51 acres and 1.5 acres. Dave Jorgensen was present on behalf of the project. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Fire hydrants should be installed at the corner of Highway 45 and the proposed street along the east side of the property and between lots 3 and 4 beside the proposed street. The second hydrant will require an 8 inch water line. 2. Plat review and Subdivision comments. 3. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications, and calculation for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, sidewalks, parking lot 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. Committee Discussion Warrick: This property was previously seen by the Planning Commission as a preliminary plat known as Robinwood Addition. Since then, the owner has decided not to develop that subdivision in the configuration of the original proposal and has decided to create a total of 5 lots on this land. Tract 5 is an existing piece of property that is under a different parcel number. Tract 5 is shown on here because it's under the same ownership but it is not part of the lots for this request. Conklin: Lot splits can only create 4 parcels. Warrick: They are requesting the maximum number of lot split allowed and they are shown as tracts 1 through 4. It has been approved by county planning. Jorgensen: We have no problems with the staff recommendations. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes June 17, 1999 Page 34 Public Comment None MOTION Mr. Odom made a motion to approve the lot splits subject to staff comments. Ms. Hoover seconded the motion. Mr. Ward concurred. • • Subdivision Committee Minutes June 17, 1999 Page 35 LSD99-17: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT SPRING CREEK CENTRE, PP174 This item was submitted by Roger Trotter of Development Consultants, Inc. on behalf of Developers Diversified for property located in lots 3A and 4R of Spring Park Subdivision. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 5.488 acres. Roger Trotter was present on behalf of the request Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards. 2. Add one fire hydrant in the landscape area on the north side of the entrance off Mall Ave. If the sprinkler connections are to be on the rear walls of the proposed buildings, another fire hydrant will be needed in the rear. 3. Stop signs are needed at the entrance/exit locations off of Mall Avenue if they are not currently in place. 4. Plat review and Subdivision comments. 5. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications, and calculations for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, sidewalks, parking lots and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements. 6. Large scale development approval is valid for one calendar year. 7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits b. Separate easement plat for this project. c. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 8. Submission of rear elevation renderings. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes June 17, 1999 Page 36 Committee Discussion Warrick: This property is the area that is attached to the Home Depot. We had a previous large scale development for lots 4R and 7 of the Spring Creek Centre where they had originally proposed some additional retail area being attached to the Home Depot. This is a change in that large scale development which is why we received a new large scale proposal. Parking is in place for the entire development and therefore staff has not required additional parking. Commercial design standards do apply. Staff sees no problem with commercial design standards. Rutherford: The sidewalks have already been constructed. Public Comment None Committee Discussion Odom. This is an Old Navy? Conklin: Yes. Hoover: Does Mall Avenue continue directly south? Warrick: It will. Hoover: Will you see the back of this development? Warrick: The back becomes a side. There is an access drive at the very south side of all of these buildings behind the Home Depot. Just south of that is a developable lot which is part of the CMN project. I'm not sure how close they would develop to that access drive but it's really not anything we can predict until we get a large scale on that property. Conklin: There will be flood way and flood plain. Warrick: This is approximately the location of a trail. Is that right Chuck? Rutherford: Well, not just south. Hoover: It sounds like you're telling me this will be visible. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes June 17, 1999 Page 37 Conklin: You'll be able to see it running north on Mall Avenue. Hoover: We need that elevation. Conklin: Okay. We can put a copy of the preliminary plat for that area showing where the trail will be. MOTION Mr. Odom made a motion to forward this to the Planning Commission subject to staff comments. Ms. Hoover seconded the motion. Mr. Ward concurred. Subdivision Committee Minutes June 17, 1999 Page 38 LSD98-12.1: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT TRICHELL MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING, PP212 This item was submitted by Hannah McNeill of Wischmeyer Architect on behalf of John A. Griffin for property located in Lot 14 of CMN Business Park. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 1.9 acres. Hannah McNeill and Chris Parton were present on behalf of the project. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Planning Commission determination of compliance with commercial design standards. 2. Plat review and Subdivision comments. 3. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, sidewalks, parking lots and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements. 4. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 6 foot sidewalk with a minimum 10 foot green space along Millsap Road. Large scale development approval to be valid for one calendar year Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits b. Separate easement plat for this project c. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 7. Relocation of the tree planters to provide a 24 foot drive instead of 27 feet as shown. 8. Planting of shorter tree species to the rear of the structure along the south property line. 9. Waiver request for the landscaping within the parking lot per the landscape Subdivision Committee Minutes June 17, 1999 Page 39 administrator's recommendation. Committee Discussion Warrick: This is a revised large scale development. The project was originally approved in 1998 and they have changed their footprint to some extent therefore, it is required to come back. This is the second time you've seen this proposal. Rutherford: On both sides of the driveway, you need to remove the radius lines through the island. Hesse: I would support the straightening of the curb and allowing more landscaping. At plat review, we discussed the planting areas and the fact that the overhang would hit the trees. Perry Franklin did feel that the 19 foot space was really being utilized as planters. The planters were there for the interior parking lot requirement. We have in our ordinance a specification that interior can not be used in lieu of other plantings. Your exterior landscaping cannot be looked at as interior landscaping. To clarify that, we ask that the interior landscaping enter into the parking lot 4 feet. Personally, it would be fine to not put an island in if you were are putting trees along the sides of the parking lot. We have no side parking lot landscaping requirements. This developer could actually have a lot less trees along here and meet the interior parking requirements and we would have lost trees. I would suggest that we go ahead and straighten the curb line out and leave the trees the way they are and not ask them to do the plantings. The trees have more room to grow with the 5 foot strip here and the 5 foot strip adjacent. You end up with more trees along the sides of the parking lot but you don't have interior landscaping. Conklin: They will put trees along the edge but not in the interior and we'll wind up with more trees. That is a decision that this Committee needs to make. Hesse: I would support getting more landscaping by straightening the curb and it would improve the buffer and the situation for parking and drainage. You don't have to go around curbs. McNeill: There are still electrical lines on here. Warrick: The SWEPCO representative said that there was a line back there in the existing landscaping. I don't remember them asking for that to be removed. Hesse: What we had talked about was changing the species to a shorter species not reaching more than 10 to 20 feet in height. Conklin: Is it acceptable to put trees on the edge instead of within? The ordinance does Subdivision Committee Minutes June 17, 1999 Page 40 state that interior landscaping that is defined in the ordinance as something that extends 4 feet or more into the parking lot. This is a change from what we have been doing. I support Kim's recommendation. She is the landscape administrator and if she thinks this project would be better served with trees along the perimeter, I support that. It is different from what we have been requiring of other developers. Ward: I'm not sure we can make that determination at this level. Odom: The problem I have with it not going in, is that whenever these people are gone, and these trees are taken out, you're not going to be left with any reminders of what is suppose to be there. That's one of the good things about having a 4 foot interior planter. It's obvious what those were for and you can go back and require it. If these trees were taken out, all you have is parking lot. There's not going to be any reminder why we had that. Hesse: You're still going to have trees in the island. Odom: When these trees die, you know what that island is. When a tree dies along the exterior, it's eventually -- Hoover: Is this something that we could follow if these all die? Do you follow up on that? Hesse: Yes, we do. The idea would be that the tree would be visibly dead and at that time, the landscape administrator asks them to replace it. If it's dead and they remove it then -- typically, the landscape administrator should be aware of it. Hoover: I'm certainly for bringing in more trees. Is this building smaller than the original? Hesse: That's what I thought. Conklin: This was brought back because the exterior of the building failed to let the interior space work for doctors offices. This building has been designed by an architectural firm, Wischmeyer and Associates to properly design the building in the configuration to where they can actually break the space out for professional doctors to go in. Odom: What color is your roof going to be? McNeill: The main pieces are copper color metal roof and the back park is a composition shingle. The towers will stand out as well as the canopy. The back part consists of a small canopy on the other side with cooper colored roof. The materials are split face, concrete tile panels underneath each of the windows. Eventually, any of windows and panels could be removed and a door could be inserted. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes June 17, 1999 Page 41 Public Comment None Commission Discussion Ward: Odom. What do we recommend or not recommend as far as the landscaping? We will have to have a waiver request for the interior landscaping. Conklin: I agree. I think this committee can make a recommendation that instead of putting in islands in the parking lot, trees could be planted along the perimeter and that additional trees will be added. MOTION Mr. Odom made a motion to forward the project to the Planning Commission subject to staff comments and submission of a waiver request for the interior landscaping. Ms. Hoover seconded the motion. Mr. Ward concurred. Further Commission Discussion Parton: We will be loosing 4 parking spaces in the parking lot? What Kim said is we would be required to essentially put in 4 landscaped islands within the parking lot and do away with the diamonds which would meet the landscape requirements and not have to request a waiver. I think that would be acceptable to us. Conklin: If that is the case, we could approve it here today with that option. MOTION Mr. Odom made a motion to approve the project at this level subject to staff recommendation and fulfillment of interior landscaping requirements. Ms. Hoover seconded the motion. Mr. Ward concurred. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes June 17, 1999 Page 42 Note to file: This project must provide a definitive answer as to whether or not they will meet the interior landscaping requirements and same should be submitted to the Planning Division no later than 10 a.m. on Monday, June 21, 1999.