Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-09-30 - Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, September 30, 1999 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED FP99-5: Candlewood, pp294 AD99-21: WRMC, pp250 MEMBERS PRESENT Bob Estes Lorel Hoffman Conrad Odom STAFF PRESENT • Tim Conklin Kim Hesse Janet Johns Ron Petrie Charles Venable Dawn Warrick • ACTION TAKEN Pull from agenda Forward to PC MEMBERS ABSENT Lee Ward STAFF ABSENT Chuck Rutherford Kim Rogers Perry Franklin • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes September 30, 1999 Page 2 FP99-5: FINAL PLAT CANDLEWOOD DEVELOPMENT, LLC, PP294 This item was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of David Chapman of Candlewood Development, LLC for property located north of Township and east of Highway 265. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains 45.60 acres with 53 lots proposed. This item was removed from the agenda. • • Subdivision Committee Minutes September 30, 1999 Page 3 AD99-21• ADMINISTRATIVE WASHINGTON REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, PP250 This item was submitted by Kurt Jones of Crafton, Tull, & Associates on behalf of Washington Regional Medical Center for property located North of Appleby Road and West of North Hills Blvd. The request is to accept revisions to the large scale development approved January 11, 1999. Chris Parton and Jim Tenpenny were present on behalf of the request. Committee Discussion Hoffman: Welcome to the September 30 meeting of the Subdivision Committee. The only item on the agenda this morning is an administrative item for Washington Regional Medical Center concerning revisions made to an originally approved large scale. It is back before the Subdivision Committee because the revisions were such that both sides needed a chance to review the items that have changed and discuss them more thoroughly before it went to Planning Commission. Conklin: Several weeks ago, Washington Regional Medical Center met with the city and discussed some of the changes that they would like to make to their large scale development that was approved on January 11 of this year. Those changes included reorienting the building. Changing the building footprint. Adding an additional 14,000 square feet which is being made up inside the building and moving the access. I have exhibits of what was originally approved in January and what they are proposing today. They propose to relocate the access further to the north, changing the parking lot configuration and making the entrance to the building the main focal point. Also, staff wanted the Commission to take a look at the building elevations and approve those changes from what was proposed back in January. Those are the issues that staff felt that the Commission should look at and approve at the Commission level. Since then, there has been some discussion with regard to a large pecan tree on the site. Commissioners Johnson and Hoffman, I believe, have been out to the site and looked at this tree. I have identified that tree on both plans. That tree was proposed to be removed back in January when the large scale was approved It's proposed to be removed as a part of the new plan. This did not go back through the entire large scale development process. I felt the issues that we should address are the changes to the elevations and the additional square footage and the access and the parking lot configuration. That's where we're at today. Staff is recommending approval of the changes for this new large scale development plan including the elevation drawing. Hoffman: Engineering? • Petrie: No comment. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes September 30, 1999 Page 4 Hoffman: I think Patti Irwin had called Kim. Could you fill us in on this? Hesse: She's the urban forester for the Arkansas Forestry Commission Patti and I walked this site in December and January. We were aware of both large trees. Hoffman: Let's clarify that the large elm is slated to remain. Hesse: Yes. We talked about the tree preservation plan in great depth. I think what you really have to look at and this is the way that we both view it as a balancing act. You have to balance the cost of the construction and changes to the construction to save a tree with the value of the tree. The value of the tree goes to the historical value, the emotional value, and the environmental value This tree has a lot of value. The way I look at it now and the way I looked at it then was what would it cost this development to save that tree. I think by looking at the new plan, it appears and I'm not an expert but I do know how to read grading which I have done for several years and I don't know all of the aspects of this project but it does appear that there is cut in the area of the tree and filling of the site at other locations. I also find that this is done to cut your costs. If you didn't do the cut and you didn't generate fill material on the site, it's a lot of money to bring that in. That's the way I looked at it both times. I do believe there are always solutions. It's just a matter of how much time and asking the engineer to look at it again which generates cost. I do believe that originally the elm tree was always supposed to be preserved and that was the wish of the hospital. The first plan showed this preserved but there was no way with that grading plan that you could have preserved it. I think they realized that and they redesigned it. Whether they ever really took into account really trying to preserve the pecan tree, I couldn't say. We're not just talking about one pecan tree. There is also a huge, 30 inch oak tree and a 36 inch oak tree. There are several trees right here. I don't know how much time they took really trying to preserve the trees on that side of the site. It is my opinion that the engineering cost to look at this again is justified because the tree is worth that. That group of trees is worth looking at it again Once you do that and you determine that it's just going to cost exponentially much more to save that tree, then that is the hospital's decision to either spend that money and save the tree or not. I would request that if we go that route that the people making the decision go to the site. Maybe they have. In my experience, most of the time, people involved with projects never step foot on the site. That occurs a lot. This drawing is hard to look at. I spent hours looking at it. It seems to me that you can keep the project basically the same by not cutting that much and meet the grade. Hoffman: It wouldn't put the tree up in the air so far? Hesse: It's currently a 10 foot cut. If it was more of an 8 foot cut you would have to have a 2 foot retaining wall around that tree. It would make a bigger slope. You're bound to loose trees in other locations. I don't know all the parameters of parking and circulation. Just to say that is feasible, I can't say that. Just looking at it, if the circulation is trying to get people into • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes September 30, 1999 Page 5 this side, I think it's possible. Hoffman: I think we're here to get everybody's heads together. Estes: When you say you're suggesting the decision makers go out and look at the site, who are you talking about? Hoffman: She's talking about the hospital. When taking things like this into account, you have a 3D image that you have to work with. You have the parking circulation. You have an issue about the cut and fill as it relates to the creek bed on the other side. This is what Patti and I talked about and I want to be real clear that what she told me was that by doing grading in this manner, we are sacrificing the pecan tree to save more of the creek bed. Parton: There are 2 creek beds which we took into consideration. If we were to raise the area by 8 feet, it's not a simple matter. It's a relative change to the entire site. It raises the finished floor of many of the buildings. Estes: You said the finished floor? Parton: Yes. Hoffman: It's not just a matter of redoing everything in the proximity of this pecan tree. Parton: No, ma'am Hoffman: It's a ripple effect. Parton: Across the entire site. The parking grade is 3 to 4% which is fairly steep for a parking lot. We feel with the nature of this development and the type of people using the facility including the handicapped and sick, we don't want to steepen those grades more. We can't raise the finished floor without increasing the grade of the parking lot. It's a rise across the entire site. That almost ensures that the trees we have been working to save will have to be removed as well as trees along the creek bed. We are working adamantly to save those now. Hoffman: The creek bed is an important environmental feature to the watersheds and downstream. We've had presentations from the Federal Government when we were looking at CMN rezoning that emphasized the importance of maintaining a natural topography at the creeks. At the same time, this tree is significant because it's much larger than many of them that you see around time. I believe it is one of the original trees as opposed to second or third growth. Kim, how old is it? • • Subdivision Committee Minutes September 30, 1999 Page 6 Hesse: I don't know Typically, a tree like that would be over 100 years old but without knowing what it's been through including the conditions of the soil, it's hard to say. Parton: If we were to go ahead and raise this entire site up to save that tree, we're going to loose this 40 inch elm no matter what because it's going to be in a considerable amount of fill. Hesse: Are you trying to get people from this parking lot into the building? Tenpermy: Yes. Hesse: Basically, what happens here is this is cut. It goes up and down. It seems to me that we could meet grade but it would change the access into that building. Hoffman: There is no way to bridge or create a walkway? Tenpenny: That's our service entrance to the hospital. We'll have large trucks in and out of that area It would significantly change the elevation. Hesse: There is a balance. To what extent do we ask them to change things? I don't really know enough about this project and I'm certainly not an expert. These are valuable trees. Reevaluating engineering is costly. Estes: I have several questions. We have Skull Creek through here. Does Skull Creek, the spring, the pond, and the other creek bed have any protective status? Conklin: Skull Creek is in FEMA's 100 year flood plain and flood way. The other creek is not. Estes: Hesse: Estes: Tenpenny: Estes: Does the spring or pond have any protective status? Sure, as a ecosystem. Is the pond fed by the spring? Yes, sir How is it fed? Tenpenny: The previous owner used a supplemental pipe system which drains into the pond • and keeps it fresh. We wish to improve that by cleaning the pond and make it more useable. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes September 30, 1999 Page 7 Estes: How does the cut impact the stream? Do you know where the water comes from? Tenpenny: It comes up that fault line. Estes: Where is the fault line? Parton. Right here. Estes: It follows that fault line? Tenpenny: We feel that the construction will not effect the flow of that spring. We will stay off the fault line. Estes: Where is that fault line, again? Parton: It's the cross hatched area. Estes: Does the stream drain into Skull Creek? Hoffman: Are you asking these questions to determine how much of the site will retain its natural features versus this tree? Estes: That's where I'm headed and the impact on any protected status of the two creek beds and the spring. Odom. There are other trees that are being saved. Estes: This a subjective analysis, but it seems to me that it is important to preserve the creek beds and the springs. It seems to me that it is absolutely critical not to disrupt this fault line and this spring and this pond because if you do there could be some very serious consequences. Tenpenny: We would like to keep this as natural as possible but still clean it up and make it accessible to the public Estes: Isn't there an old homestead site somewhere on this location? Tenpenny: It's old and deteriorated. Estes: Does it have any protected status that you are aware of? • Subdivision Committee Minutes September 30, 1999 Page 8 Hoffman: There is a foundation remaining. Tenpenny: I don't know exactly what it was used for. Discussion ensued regarding various options for parking lot access to the buildings as sited if cut and fill areas were adjusted to save the pecan tree. Estes: When there is this type of disruption to the root system, what is the attrition rate? In other words, if you do what you're suggesting, realistically will the tree exist in 5 years, 8 years? Does it become firewood in 10 years? Hesse: Even dropping the grade, it wouldn't work. You would have to take out the parking lot to get away from that tree. Estes: What if we stay out of the drip line? Hesse: Pecan trees are pretty tough but elm trees are even tougher. They have managed to save a lot of trees. They have certainly met the ordinance. Hoffman: Thank you, Kim. Public Comment None Further Discussion Hoffman: I just want to make sure that we are visiting every possible solution before we move on. We don't have any problems with the parking, square footage or any of that. Conklin: This was the only issue which came up. The applicants met with us several weeks ago. They proposed these changes to the access, the entry into the building, and the elevations. As staff, I was unaware of any issue with regard to the tree. This was approved back in January of 1999. It was approved with the tree being removed and I never thought that we would consider saving it at this time with these changes. Odom: This is a large site and it looks like there is a lot of preservation on it. It sounds like this is the plan with the least ecological impact or the least sacrifice. It sounds like if you start trying to save this tree, you sacrifice more. I think this looks good. Estes: Is that a motion? • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes September 30, 1999 Page 9 MOTION Odom: I move that we forward it on to the Planning Commission. Estes: I second that and let me explain why I second that. The things that seem to be critical which we have talked about are the creek, the spring, the pond, and the fault. It seems to me that something has been done to preserve what needs to be preserved. I also reflect back that we approved this at one time with the tree removed. I am very reluctant to revisit that issue and change that condition. Hoffman: I think that's an unfortunate oversight and we all do our best but sometimes don't get everything looked at and just because we make a mistake, we shouldn't perpetuate it. Odom: I don't know that it was a mistake. You can't save every tree every time. They have a great amount of preservation on this extensively large site. We're not talking about a small site where they've come in and taken out their only tree. I beg to differ. I think a lot of work was done to preserve what needed to be preserved. Our landscape administrator went out there with forestry experts. This was looked at in great detail. While we strive to preserve as much as we can, we can't always preserve everything. I disagree. I think there was good, detailed analysis before and it has not changed all that much and it definitely doesn't ecologically impact the site any more that it did before. Hoffman: You probably misunderstood the thrust of my comments. I think that we certainly do owe the developer some commendation for their efforts. I didn't mean to imply any over sight to them or to staff. However, when we become aware of a critical tree like this, I think that we owe it to everybody including the city at large to revisit and make sure that we have done everything that we can do. The comments about the 2 creeks involved is what made the difference to me. If we look at this as an overall site and say we'll save one tree but lose 10 over here and more over here. I don't think that would do anybody service. I want to make it clear that you've made a large effort to accommodate as much preservation as you could. With that, I concur with the motion. I would like the motion to reflect that the Subdivision Committee did take a good look at this and we are satisfied that it's okay to remove the tree. I want to make a positive statement to the Commission when it comes up. Meeting adjourned at 9:00 a.m.