Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-11-10 - Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on Wednesday, November 10, 1999 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED LS99-22: Freeman, pp221 PP99-13: Copper Creek, pp100 PP99-11: McMillin Estates, pp441 PP99-12: Pine Valley, Ph V, pp363 MEMBERS PRESENT Lorel Hoffman Conrad Odom Lee Ward STAFF PRESENT Tim Conklin Kim Hesse Janet Johns Ron Petrie Kim Rogers Chuck Rutherford Dawn Warrick ACTION TAKEN Approved Forward Forward Forward MEMBERS ABSENT None STAFF ABSENT • • • Minutes of Subdivision Committee November 10, 1999 Page 2 LS99-22: LOT SPLIT FREEMAN, PP221 This item was submitted by Robert Wallace of Wallace Land Surveying on behalf of Mark Freeman for property located at 3275 N. Sassafras Hill Road. The property is in the planning growth area and contains approximately 8 76 acres. The request is to split the property into 2 tracts of approximately 0.83 acres and 7.93 acres. Mark Freeman was present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation Staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. All Plat Review and Subdivision comments. 2. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications, and calculations for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, sidewalks, parking 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. Committee Discussion Conklin: This was submitted by Robert Wallace of Wallace Land Surveying on behalf of Mark Freeman. The proposal is to split the property into 2 tracts creating a 0.83 acre tract and a 7.93 acre tract. This lot split was approved by Washington County Planning on October 11, 1999. There are no adjacent Master Street Plan streets. Sidewalks, landscaping, and parks fees are not required. This is in the county. A 30 foot utility easement along the west side of Sassafras Hill Road has been added to the project plat as requested by the Plat Review Committee. Staff is recommending approval and this can be approved at the Subdivision Committee level. We have our standard conditions of approval attached as a part of our report. Hoffman: Anything further from sidewalks? Rutherford: This is outside the city. Petrie: No comment. Hoffman: Drainage? • • • Minutes of Subdivision Committee November 10, 1999 Page 3 Petrie: This is in the county. Hoffman: Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Freeman. I don't have a presentation. I have the copies of the survey and plat which have already been submitted. Public Comment None. MOTION Ward: I'll recommend approval of LS99-22 for a lot split based on all staff comments. This is automatic? Odom. Yes. I'll second. Hoffman: I'll concur. I have one question. Is this property zoned? Conklin: No. It's outside the city limits. • Minutes of Subdivision Committee November 10, 1999 Page 4 PP99-13: PRELIMINARY PLAT COPPER CREEK (STONERIDGE) SUBDIVISION, PP100 This item was submitted by Brian Moore on behalf of Gary Brandon Enterprises for property located east of Highway 265 and north of Zion Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 35 acres with 85 lots proposed. Brian Moore, Gary Brandon, and Micki Harrington were present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation 1. Provide additional information and a written request for a variance from the 100 foot required setback for a home from a permanent water feature and maximum street grade of 4% at the intersection. 2. Improve Zion Road to county standards from the end of the existing paved section to the eastern property line of this development. • 3. Planning Commission determination of necessary off site improvements or assessment for Zion Road from this site west to Hwy 265. Zion Road is presently a 17 foot wide paved street with a 14 foot concrete culvert. Engineering will provide a recommendation by the Planning Commission meeting. 4. Property line conflicts have been found along the north and south property lines. These need to be resolved prior to the acceptance of construction plans. Running Springs Drive (stub out to the north) shall be built to local street standards. This needs to be revised on the plat. 6. Dedication of 1.49 acres to the City and payment of $8,025 to satisfy the current park land dedication requirements. This fee is based upon the present park land formula which is required to be updated every 2 years. Actual park land fees will be determined at the time of final plat approval. 7. Street name revisions need to be shown on the plat including switching Cooper Creek Drive and Jasper Lane. Garden Grove Drive needs to be Court or Place and Peppermill Lane needs to be Place. 8. All Plat Review and Subdivision comments. 9. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications, and calculations for grading, • Minutes of Subdivision Committee November 10, 1999 Page 5 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. 10. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 4 foot sidewalk with a minimum 5 foot green space along one side of each residential street with 40 foot total right of way and a minimum 4 foot sidewalk with a minimum 6 foot green space along both sides of each local street with a 50 foot right of way. 11. Preliminary plat approval is valid for 1 calendar year. 12. Extend the sidewalk on Peppermill to between lots 58 and 59 and to between lots 54 and 55 on Water Stone. 13. The property owners' association will make provisions for tree replacement in the protective covenants. • 14. Extend the sidewalk to the property line of Lot 55 along Hearth Stone to the east. 15. Widen the utility easements between lots 51 and 52 and lots 73 and 74. • 16. Provide a drainage easement for the detention pond. The property owners' association will maintain all drainage outside of the right of way. 17. Provide for irrigation. 18. Manholes must have truck access. 19. The final plat for Stonewood must be filed prior to final plat approval of Copper Creek Subdivision. 20. Show the Master Street Plan streets on the vicinity map. Committee Discussion Conklin: This is a preliminary plat for Copper Creek Subdivision. This is located immediately east of the recently approved Stonewood Subdivision. The street connections are being provided to the north and east The development also has access to Zion Road to the south and connects 2 streets, Hearth Stone and Water Stone to the Stonewood Development to the west. The Parks Board has voted to accept a combination of land and money to meet the • • Minutes of Subdivision Committee November 10, 1999 Page 6 dedication requirements. Staff is recommending that this plat be forwarded to the Planning Commission. The conditions to address and discuss are the requested variances. There is a variance from the 100 foot required setback from a permanent water feature that is located on the north side of Hearth Stone Avenue. There is an existing pond. They are requesting a variance of the maximum street grade of 4% at an intersection. They are required to make improvements to Zion Road to county standard from the end of the existing paved section to the eastern property line of this development. Currently, there is a gravel road at the end of Zion and you tum to the east. We are requesting that it be improved to county standards. There is a property line conflict along the north line of this property. This must be resolved prior to the acceptance of construction plans. Running Springs Drive which is the stub out to the north shall be built to local street standards. This needs to be revised on the plat. Dedication of 1.49 acres to the City and payment of $8,025 to satisfy the current park land dedication requirements. This fee is based upon the park land formula which is required to be updated every 2 years The actual park land fee will be determined at the time of final plat approval Street name revisions need to be shown on the plat. Copper Creek Drive should be Jasper Lane. Garden Grove Drive needs to be Court or Place. Peppermill Lane needs to be Place. We have the standard conditions of approval on this plat. At Plat Review, staff did discuss connections to Zion Road. There are currently 2 houses owned by Youth Bridge located south of lot 60 and east of 59, 52, and 51. At that time, we recommended that the street be connected to Zion Road at that location. I have talked to Scott Linebaugh with Youth Bridge. There is conflicting information as to whether or not there is a road easement at that location. Staff requested that if they could not work out a connection in this location that they provide connection on their property located where the proposed park land area is shown on this plat. They have complied with what staff has recommended. Staff felt that any time you have a subdivision that adjoins a public street right of way a connection should be made to that street. Therefore, we have asked that this street be connected in this location. Rutherford: They have met most of the requirements. 1 would ask that the sidewalk on Peppermill Lane be brought down to the property line between lots 58 and 59. That would wrap the culdesac. On lot 54 and 55 on Water Stone Drive, that sidewalk needs to constructed to the property line on 54 and 55. Our ordinance states that sidewalks shall wrap the culdesac. Hoffman: You're saying to completely wrap them. Right now they both go about 3/4 of the way. Rutherford: They need to end at a property line. Also, there must be an access ramp at those points to get onto the sidewalks. Hesse: Would you consider putting in the covenants that the property owners will be responsible for installation of trees on each lot? • Brandon: Can you provide some language? Minutes of Subdivision Committee November 10, 1999 Page 7 Hoffman: Is there a property owners' association? Brandon: There will be. Petrie: I have site specific comments. Extend the sanitary sewer along Club Stone Drive to the property line. The eyebrow culdesac adjacent to lots 7, 8, and 9 is too shallow. Hoffman: Can you add these to the Planning Commission conditions of approval? Petrie: Yes. The first variance is for the pond. Is this going to act as a detention pond? Moore: No. Petrie: Is the water elevation going to consistent? Moore: It will fluctuate some in heavy rains Petrie: It's going to have a definite overflow. Moore: Correct. Petrie: If that is the case, you don't need a waiver from that ordinance. Moore: Okay. Petrie: The other waiver on the street grade needs to be a written request stating where, how many, and what the slope will be. Moore: Until I design it, it's iffy. I'm not sure exactly where it will go. Ward: Which intersection are you talking about? Moore: Possibly on Zion and Jasper, by just looking at the topo. Petrie: We need information so we can determine whether we will recommend it or not. Add a 20 foot utility easement between lots 51 and 52 for the extension of the sewer. The easement between lots 73 and 74 is too small. There need to be separate drainage easements and utility easements. You've got several easements for storm pipes which are labeled as utility easements and we need those noted as drainage easements and separate them from the utility easements. Through the detention pond, the City requires a continuous easement through the pond connecting the inlet and outlet structures. Detention ponds are required to be sodded and • Minutes of Subdivision Committee November 10, 1999 Page 8 have concrete trickle channels. We are requesting that all the storm drainage outside the right of way be maintained by the POA and that includes the detention ponds and permanent ponds and any type of swale or channel. Make provisions for irrigation which need to be cleared with the Water and Sewer Superintendent. All back yard manholes must have truck access. More than likely it will have to be a gravel drive. You need to look at making adjustments. There is a lift station being constructed with Stonewood Subdivision. Those construction plans have not been submitted. All of the infrastructure associated with Stonewood will have to be in place before we can accept this. Conklin: No final plat for Copper Creek Subdivision will be signed off until the final plat for Stonewood Subdivision has been recorded. They are relying on Stonewood for the utilities and streets. The city will not have ownership until the final plat for Stonewood has been recorded at the county. Timing is critical for this development. Petrie: Stonewood must construct a sanitary sewer lift station. Any upgrade to that structure to accommodate these lots would be at this developers' expense. Moore: We don't have a presentation. We have tried to abide by the staff requirements. • Conklin: Engineering will be providing a recommendation to the Planning Commission regarding necessary off site improvements or assessments to Zion Road from the site west to Highway 265. Zion Road is currently 17 feet wide with a 14 foot one way concrete culvert which crosses the creek. Engineering will provide a recommendation on assessment or improvement to Zion Road. Hoffman: That will be done in time for the applicant to respond. Conklin: Yes. Public Comment Frank Grant, residing at 3322 E. Zion Road, was present. Grant: We have questions on the traffic flow coming out of this subdivision. First, dumping this on Zion Road through Julie Lane, there is a one lane bridge. Warrick: The private drive he is referring to is for Youth Bridge and it's known as Julie Lane. • Grant: You have all this traffic using the one lane bridge In the last 18 months, 2 cars have missed that bridge and went off in the ditch. I hope the Planning Commission goes out to Minutes of Subdivision Committee November 10, 1999 Page 9 look at this area. Also, Mr. Foster's development will have all the traffic flowing through his development to get to Highway 265. I can't imagine him agreeing to that. You can't dump it all on Zion Road, either. Odom. When we approved Mr. Foster's development, we required stub out to this area He knew when he put his place in that it would be required. Grant: What improvements will they make to Julie Lane? I live directly in front of that and that's why I'm interested. Robert Burge, residing at 3435 Zion road, was present. Hoffman: In regard to connecting to Highway 265, as a subdivision is brought through the process and receives approval, there is a great deal of discussion regarding the placement of streets because it is the accepted view on the part of the City that the dispersement of the traffic over several areas is preferable to dumping it all out in one spot. In this case, you have 5 altemative routes to get out of this subdivision. One to the east, one to the south, and 2 to the west, and one to the north and that would stub out into undeveloped land to the north. There is nothing developed there but we are making provisions for something to come through. Grant: anywhere. Going east, you're going right back to Zion Road and that doesn't get you Burge: Will Jasper Lane feed into Zion Road? Hoffman: Yes. Burge: That will be next to the park area. Hoffman: Yes, at this point. Burge: Do they have any plans to do anything to the one lane bridge? Hoffman: Engineering is in the process of making a recommendation on that. We haven't heard back from them yet. Before this plat moves forward to the Planning Commission, we will know what the Engineering Department has come up with in terms of the fair share cost of this development to improving that bridge. It is a question on the table and we will have an answer to it. This is a hearing for the preliminary plat. If this proceeds to the Planning Commission in 2 weeks, the Planning Commission would then vote on whether or not to approve the preliminary plat based on the items of discussion that we are talking about today. • Minutes of Subdivision Committee November 10, 1999 Page 10 John Nooncaster, residing at 2655 N. Wakefield Place, was present. Nooncaster In the northwest corner, they show 2 pins and in Stonewood Subdivision, they identified the south pin as the corner. Hoffman: Is this the property line dispute we have talked about? Conklin: That is what needs to be worked out. Nooncaster: At some point, I will develop my property to the north. I would like to get comments from staff and Subdivision. Greystone couldn't be extended directly to Running Springs because that would cause a strip of the property to be too small to be developed. Conklin: You would probably have to curve the road to the north. Odom: Does he have the distance to do that? Conklin: Yes. • Petrie: We have not reviewed those construction plans and comments here are inappropriate. Hoffman: But, when your property comes through, we would coordinate all that. Grant: What is the price range of these houses? • Brandon: I don't have any specific figures because we haven't priced the lots. I would guess them to be $200,000 or more. There will be a property owners association and a pool. Further Committee Discussion Rutherford: On the culdesac between Tots 19 and 18, extend the sidewalk to the property line. Moore: Okay. Rutherford: Regarding note number 1, could you make that more clear9 Moore: Okay. Odom. There seems like a lot of work between now and Planning Commission. • Minutes of Subdivision Committee November 10, 1999 Page 11 Hoffman: That is my thought, too. Warrick: I think most of the comments that Ron made are comments that are based on the fact that staff has requested that the applicant change this plat more times than usual after Plat Review. Many of those comments would have been addressed at Plat Review. Hoffman: I have a question about the status of Julie Lane. Were we unable to determine if there was any possible connection to Running Springs Drive that would provide a primary access point to the subdivision? Conklin: I have had several conversations with Mr. Brandon and Scott Linebaugh. The original preliminary plat that was submitted to the City of Fayetteville showed a 60 foot road easement located not on his property but on Youth Bridge property. Scott Linebaugh called me and talked about when they purchased this property that their title company informed them that there was not a 60 foot easement on this property. Odom: That's the title company's problem, not ours. • Conklin: Our County Assessor plat pages do not show a road easement on Youth Bridge property. We are unable to determine whether or not it exists. I recommended that since Mr. Brandon has property which connects to county road 92 or Zion Road that they provide the street in that location where there is clear title and provide a connection to the north. Brandon: This is not a public easement. Petrie: There is a 20 foot public easement. Micki Harrington, attorney, was present on behalf of Mr. Brandon. Harrington: We had a number of discussions with Youth Bridge about that. They are hesitant to provide a connection because of the nature and uses of the houses for teenagers. They were concerned about access to the subdivision. They do not want to destroy the isolation of those homes and they would be happier with a buffer around them and a road in a different location. We're trying to work this out. Conklin: Scott Linebaugh indicated to me that he was opposed to extending the street to the north. When they purchased the property, they wanted to make sure they would be isolated. I was more concerned about connections to Zion Road. I'm comfortable with the connection to Jasper Lane. • Hoffman: We need the site distances confirmed prior to setting that final grade at Jasper. I Minutes of Subdivision Committee November 10, 1999 Page 12 think it's better planning not to have your major access on a curve. I am satisfied with the connections to future developments. Odom: What is Hearth Stone's designation? Conklin: That is a local street. Next year, when we revisit the Master Street Plan and the Land Use Plan, this is an area that we might want to look at for additional collector streets. At this time, we don't have any collector streets designated. Hoffman: Is the Master Street Plan included in the vicinity map? I would like to ask the applicant to add that. That would be a big help. I would like to have that on all projects. We need to know the off site improvements before the Agenda Session. Odom: The Planning Commission will go out and tour this at Agenda Session on Thursday, November 18th. Grant: You keep talking about the Youth Bridge property. According to the plat, that road doesn't exist. Odom: We were asking why. Hoffman: It will remain their private drive. Is that property fenced now? Conklin: No. MOTION Odom: I move to forward the preliminary plat to Planning Commission. Ward: I second. Hoffman: I concur. • • Minutes of Subdivision Committee November 10, 1999 Page 13 PP99-11: PRELIMINARY PLAT MCMILLIN ESTATES, PP441 This item was submitted by Steve Hesse of Engineering Design Associates on behalf of TFJ Nominee Trust for property located at the southeast corner of Wedington Drive and I-540. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 27.48 acres with 9 lots proposed. Steve Hesse and Dave Constien were present on behalf of the applicant. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends forwarding this item to the full Planning Commission subject to the following conditions: 1. Street connection to the south property line of lot 9 in order to provide connectivity to the vacant property to the south. • 2. Dedication of right of way along Wedington Drive must be by warranty deed to meet the requirements of the Master Street Plan for a principal arterial which is 55 feet from the centerline. • 3. Show the required sidewalk and green space along Futrall Drive along lots 8 and 10 and existing sidewalk along Wedington Drive. 4. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 6 foot sidewalk with a minimum 10 foot green space along Futrall Drive and a minimum 6 foot sidewalk with a minimum 6 foot green space along both proposed interior subdivision streets. The right of way for these streets will need to be increased from 50 feet as shown to 52 feet in order to accomodate this street standard for local streets within a commercial development. A unified development theme shall be presented in order for this development to comply with Commercial Design Standards. 6. Cross access between lots will be reviewed at the time of large scale development approval for each of these lots. 7. Proposed subdivision entrance signs must comply with the City's sign ordinance. They appear to be too close to the street right of way as shown. Minutes of Subdivision Committee November 10, 1999 Page 14 8. All Plat Review and Subdivision comments. 9. 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. 10. Preliminary plat approval is valid for one calendar year. 11. Extend the water line to the end of the stub out. 12. A wider easement is required for water and sewer along lot 1. 13. Provide ownership information for property maintenance for lot 10. 14. No freestanding signs will be permitted on lot 10. • 15. Drainage outside the right of way shall be privately maintained. Committee Discussion • Conklin: This is a commercial subdivision and zoned C-2 This has 10 proposed lots. However, one of the lots is unbuildable This is along I-540 and Futrall Drive. The majority of the property is located within the Design Overlay District. Staff has requested that access to Futrall and Wedington Drive be limited in order to reduce potential traffic conflicts. Staff believes it is important to provide a street connection to the south due to Futrall Drive being a one way, north bound street. Rutherford: This is a complicated project. We require sidewalks on our streets and they are not showing one along Futrall Drive. We have talked about doing a sidewalk through the subdivision. There would not be an access to the lots in the back and no access to the pedestrian along Futrall Drive. One scenario would be across I-540 on the other side where the hotels and motels are there is no sidewalk. Hoffman: Is there a public transportation stop on Futrall? Rutherford: Not that I'm aware of? Hoffman: Could there be? • • Minutes of Subdivision Committee November 10, 1999 Page 15 Conklin: There are not any right now. Rutherford: They have shown the sidewalks on the interior streets. The sidewalk exists on Wedington and was developed as part of the Highway widening. Do we want sidewalk on Futrall Drive? Petrie. We would request that you extend the water along the stub out. The easement on the east side of lot 1 needs to be wider for water and sewer. On lot 10, they are going to use this to rechannel the existing creek. They have received a conditional letter of map revision from FEMA to do that. They will need the Corps of Engineer's approval to do that. The owner will be required to assume maintenance of the channel. We need to know how this will owned and maintained. Hoffman: In conjunction with the rechannelization, will that be paved? Petrie: No. It will be a large, grass area Hoffman: That would shift the flood plain and FEMA would be involved. Petrie: Do you have any information on who will own that lot? Constien: I represent the trust and ideally, we would like to give it to the city for park dedication. If they don't accept that, we will maintain ownership and maintain it. Petrie: All drainage outside the right of way will be privately owned and maintained. We don't want any ownership. K. Hesse: Are they going to plant trees along the creek? S. Hesse: I don't think so. We will provide the required green space. K. Hesse: We'll lose those trees in the rechannelization and it will require replacement. Conklin: It might be helpful if you could describe what the channel will look like. S. Hesse: It's a 30 foot flat bottom channel. The side slopes will be 3 to 1. In talking to the Corps, they would prefer it not to be mowed and maintained. Their procedure is to require that it go back to a more natural state. It will be grass lined to keep the erosion down. S. Hesse: When the Marinoni's were notified of the development, Paul came into our office • and looked at the plan. Yesterday, Dave met with the Marinoni's on a possible revision to the Minutes of Subdivision Committee November 10, 1999 Page 16 entrance drive. The entrance as shown was recommended by staff for connectivity to the south. The Marinoni's would prefer not to do that. It makes them obviously connect through there. I have copies of what they worked out yesterday. Constine: In lieu of doing the connecting street along lot 9, we would provide the Marinoni's with access at the same location. When they came through with what they want to do, they would not need another entrance on to Wedington. They could all use the common entrance. Hoffman: Has staff seen this? Conklin: No. When the Marinoni's come through, we had planned for a connection to the street at this location but I want to see a connection to the south. This past summer, I had to deal with the Quality Inn on Shiloh Drive when AHTD made the access roads one way south and one way north and try to get access off Highway 62 to the hotels. The Marinoni's currently have 80 acres for sale that wrap around this property. I think it is really important to have some type of street that will provide some access over here. That's staff opinion. We need that south access. Odom. You think they can access that street? Conklin: It would be close. Warrick: It would against the ordinance because the intersections would be too close together. Constien: The Marinoni's own the frontage to the road. It's not like they are being limited to access through this area. Conklin: I understand that. Take into consideration this in one way to the north. The only way to get to the property is to go to Highway 62 and come back. I thought it was important to get a future street connection. They have 80 acres. They need access to the west along Futrall Drive. My experience is with business owners. They like access in both directions along the bypass. Hoffman: I think the connection through the center part is consistent with previous requirements for developments such as Wal-Mart where you have a building in front and a public road to get to the businesses at the back. We also have cross connections. Conklin: That is a public street with private access points. Hoffman: This is different in that it is much larger scale and more intensely zoned. • • • Minutes of Subdivision Committee November 10, 1999 Page 17 Public Comment Paula and Paul Marinoni, brother and sister, were present. Marinoni: My father sold this to the James Group about 13 or 14 years ago. 3 years ago, they began to prepare to develop. During that time, we commissioned David Glasser at the University of Arkansas' Community Design Center to help us take a look at the whole piece of property so we could approach this with a good plan. That took about a year and a half. We had many scenarios as far as land usage. Our main concern is to have a main entrance off of Highway 16 and not to land lock any property. We think it makes more sense to possibly connect Cleveland. They are putting in a 600 unit apartment complex at the top of the hill with 1000 more units on campus and it will be very important to have connecters and not major collectors. We will need to divert traffic. If Cleveland were to connect, it could join our property with a nice curve and get to the bypass. Cleveland is not on the City's Master Street Plan. We thought it was. The road to our house has been there for 100 years and we would ' want to keep that private drive. We met with Mr. Constien and EDA over the last 2 years and we have been trying to work together on this so it would make sense for everybody and it would be something that the City would be proud of. We're in agreement that we don't want people to enter the 80 acres through a shopping center. Odom: I don't think it was staff's intent. I think they want to make sure you have access. Conklin: We would have to get additional right of way to meet the standard for intersections. Paula, you've been talking with us in Planning for 2 years and have presented various proposals for rezoning property to commercial and we've also worked with you on master planning your property. I can tell you, if you subdivided a lot right here, most likely these people would want some type of access to the south. That is my experience in dealing with the business owners when the traffic was redirected to one way. You'll have to build a road somewhere. The street would have to be stubbed out to the south property line. Hoffman: I think the design presented today is preferrable and I would like to see it incorporated into the plan. Is there any way to retain a right of way and not build a street? Conklin: It needs to built. It's a requirement and it needs to be built at this time. It's too difficult to go back and try to get the original developer to pay for it. S. Hesse: These have to go through large scale development. Odom. What is the time frame on the Marinoni's development concept? Are you close to bringing it forward or is it something in the future? • Minutes of Subdivision Committee November 10, 1999 Page 18 Marinoni: The only reason we moved on it was because Dave said they were ready to go. Since they were ready to go, we needed to figure out what we wanted to do because we wanted to work with them to come up with something that made sense for us and the City. I've been frustrated with the "you can't get there from here" situation and streets that don't go through. We've considered street connections and future uses of this area. If we could have a point, main entrance to the area -- Odom: You're saying, "the whole thing" and we don't really know what that means because there is no preliminary plat. At some point in time, you might decide to sell a section of the property and prevent any southern access. I think that is why staff is recommending access to the south. Conklin: At Plat Review, we preferred the possibility of having McMillin Drive curving and providing a stub out to Futrall. You need to look at the backs and fronts of building. Constine: That's not even my property, so why would I construct the street to that point? Conklin: Stub outs are required to go to the property line. I would prefer to see this • stubbed out to the furthest south property line. Paula, you'll be required for all the streets to serve your property. I'm just trying to provide connection to the 80 acres of property for future access. • Constine: If that is the case, I'll move the street and not build the additional 500 feet of street. Hesse: That was one of 2 options at plat review. Conklin: I suggested that I wanted to try and get to Futrall if possible. That is my recommendation and I'll let the Subdivision Committee make a recommendation to the Planning Commission. Hoffman. I think the connection needs to be there based on the one way design of Futrall. Conklin: So, when we see lot 9 at large scale development or at the time Marinoni's develop, they would be responsible for the entire street on this side. Marinoni: We want a main entrance without having to go through a shopping center. Originally, we had a half a mile of frontage along Wedington and as the years passed and the bypass came through, it took off some of the frontage. We sold a parcel to the church. We sold a parcel to TMJ and we now have 360 feet of frontage that serves 114 acres. On our preliminary studies, we had a 5 acre block fronting on the 4 lane road with a preliminary entry to a • • Minutes of Subdivision Committee November 10, 1999 Page 19 commercial tract. Our entry is paramount to 114 acres. If we do it as they are proposing, we can't get on it. The only other thing to do is split the 360 feet in half and have 2 lots at 150 feet in depth which would not be big enough for commercial. This entry on Wedington is paramount to everything we want to do back there. What they are proposing to do does not serve any purpose for us at all. Odom: I think staff and this committee are in agreement. Conklin: Are you in agreement for half of this to be built on your property? Marinoni: Right. Conklin: So, we'll move this over onto your property. Marinoni: I give 25 feet of right of way. Conklin: We're all in agreement. This is a great idea. I'm still considering other access points to the property to the south. Basically, you're saying you're opposed to that and you had rather construct the streets when it develops. That's what I'm hearing Marinoni: We don't want the back of Mr. Constine's buildings to be the view from our development. We want to put the back of a building to a back of building. Constine: The property line would be a fence and not a street. Hoffman: We need to consider cross connections. I would be unwilling to get rid of a southem connection unless the Master Street Plan were amended so we would be assured that there would be a street. I appreciate your being here but this may never happen. Conklin: That's my concern. I'll have to deal with business developers who require access. Hoffman. I'm not willing to leave off the southern access unless the Master Street Plan were to be amended. We also have large scale development on each of the lots to provide additional connections. Conklin: Keep in mind this is commercial and we're trying to make this accessible. It would be nice to have sidewalks and streets if this was to develop residentially similar to the Wal-Mart Neighborhood Market on Highway 45. • Ward: We will require the street to be stubbed to the property line on lot 9 at the time this develops. • Minutes of Subdivision Committee November 10, 1999 Page 20 Hesse: Conklin: Marinoni: Fayetteville a full street. Hoffman: Conklin: Hoffman: Marinoni: Odom: We could dedicate right of way on this plat. They're showing a proposed street now. In some of the shopping areas such as the area on N. College where the Bank of is, there are multiple ways to cut through and get into it. What if they didn't develop Can't there be alleys? You're talking about cross accesses. I believe you need a street. I'm not willing to give up the street until you develop and show us your proposal. We would like for Cleveland to go through. Do you own the property all the way to Cleveland? Marinoni: No. Just to the east of us, Heckathorn owns the property and there is a dedicated road There is a house at the location to connect to Cleveland. At one point, this property owner was approached about relocating and he was willing to move. I think that is something that the City should really look into. We would consider dedicating that if we had assurances from the City that they would plan that. Hoffman: Odom. Marinoni: I think that is too far in the future. The City may plan it but the developers build it. Eventually, that would happen. We are working together. Odom: The Planner is trying to look out for your interest. I know you are saying you don't want that stub out but with staff being so adamant about it, I'll have to support them until another viable alternative is presented to us for our consideration. Hoffman: We have to look at what is before us now. With that in mind, we should keep this the way it is and it can change. It's a preliminary plat. There are numerous things that can change like amendments to the Master Street Plan. Can we talk about the sidewalk on Futrall? Rutherford: I guess this cross section is your local street. The Master Street Plan shows the street to be 28 feet with a 6 foot green space and 6 sidewalk on both sides of the street. Please show it that way so the contractor will know what is being built. On Futrall, we required Hank's • • Minutes of Subdivision Committee November 10, 1999 Page 21 Furniture Store to build the sidewalk on Futrall. Across the freeway, at the HUD housing complex, we required them to build sidewalk along Futrall. I think we need sidewalks on Futrall. The Master Street Plan requires sidewalk along Futrall. Conklin: Keep in mind this is zoned commercial. Hesse: We had the sidewalk on this and you asked us to take it off. What if we build it along Futrall to this entrance? I think there may be terrain problems along the channel. Rutherford: Are you talking about just building it along lot 8? Hesse: Yes. Hoffman: That actually makes sense to me. Rutherford: I feel we need a sidewalk on Futrall. We've required it on other developments and we should continue to do so. Hesse: Do you think anyone would cross the bypass on Wedington to get to a sidewalk Hoffman: I live in this area and I've seen it done. Conklin: There are apartments on the other side of the bypass. Hoffman: We definitely need it on lot 8. Odom: If staff says to build it, they build it. MOTION Odom. I move to forward this preliminary plat to the full Commission with the changes being made to the intersection and the extension of this street indicated on the plat and the sidewalk being built along Futrall and all other staff comments. Hoffman: Definitely show sidewalk along lot 8. Ward: What are we going to do about lot 10. Constien: We can dedicate it to the City. • Conklin: The city does not want it. • • • Minutes of Subdivision Committee November 10, 1999 Page 22 Ward: I'll second. Hoffman: I'll concur. I think it is better to err on the conservative side. We're talking about a rapidly developing area. I will be for sidewalks Hesse: We had originally shown an asphalt trail. Hoffman: I like the asphalt trail, myself. Get creative. Rutherford: The original sidewalk/trail followed the drainage. We don't want to have to do a bridge. We wanted to follow the inside of the drainage. Hesse: I'm not sure how we'll cross the channel. There would have to be a bridge if we put in a sidewalk because of the culvert. • Rutherford: Anything that is done on Futrall will have to have a permit from Mike Pickens at the Highway Department. Hesse: Look at the grading plan. There is a 25 foot green space. You would have to cross the drainage. Odom: Could you run the sidewalk to the bridge. Hesse: I don't think there's room. We would need to stay on the east side of the channel. Hoffman: Could you get that together for the agenda session? Hesse: I think it can work. • Minutes of Subdivision Committee November 10, 1999 Page 23 PP99-12: PRELIMINARY PLAT PINE VALLEY, PH V, PP363 This item was submitted by Kurt Jones of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of BMP Development for property located north of Wildwood Drive and west of Shiloh Drive. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 5 acres with 6 lots proposed. Chris Parton and Rick Kershaw were present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation Provide staff a cost estimate for the required contribution for the balance of Millsap Drive in the Brookhaven Subdivision. This is an outstanding requirement from a previous subdivision by the same developer. Update the flood plain certification. You must include the FIRM panel number and effective date. The most current information was not sufficient. • 3. The area north of the platted lot 1 in a previous phase of this subdivision at the southeast • corner of this property must be resolved. Is this a drafting error? 4. Payment of the assessment of $2,800 which is for 14 residential units at $200 per unit for improvements to the Hamestring Creek Basin. Payment of the assessment of $3,360 which is for 14 residential units at $240 per unit for improvements to Salem Drive and Shiloh Drive. 6. Lots 1 through 5 shall be required to share access points or curb cut and lot 6 shall be limited to one curb cut only. 7. All Plat Review and Subdivision comments. 8. All improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements. 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. Minutes of Subdivision Committee November 10, 1999 Page 24 10. Payment of parks fees in the amount of $4,200 for 14 units at $300 per unit. This fee is based upon the present park land formula which is required to be updated every 2 years. Actual park land fees will be determined at the time of final plat approval. 11. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 4 foot sidewalk with a minimum 6 foot green space along Wildwood Drive. 12. Fire protection per the fire chiefs requirements. Additional hydrants may be necessary depending upon the number of buildings placed on lot 6. The fire code requires that no point on any building shall be more than 500 feet road travel distance from a hydrant. 13. Preliminary plat approval is valid for one calendar year. If construction has not begun within 1 year of approval, this plat will be void. Committee Discussion Parton: The platted lot 1 got shifted. Warrick: Point West Drive is not shown on here but it does connect to Pine Valley Drive south of lot 1. It looks like those dimensions are wrong from what the final plat shows. Parton: I'll look at it. Conklin: That needs to be resolved. Rutherford: There were some outstanding projects that weren't completed but they have completed all those punch list items. Rick, did you do the landscaping on the sidewalk you just completed? Kershaw: That's between phase III and IV. I inspected that yesterday and we have some grade work to be done. Petrie: Regarding lot 1, phase I, I notice there's no utility easement in the front. You'll have to have sewer. Parton: We'll have to obtain an easement from the adjoining property owner or keep the sewer in the street right of way. Petrie: That's correct. Do you have the amount for the cash contribution toward Millsap? Kershaw: I talked to the EDA Group and they gave me a conservative figure of $70 per foot • • • Minutes of Subdivision Committee November 10, 1999 Page 25 as opposed to another figure of $220 per foot. I think that is rather conservative. It will be $100 to $125 per foot. Petrie: Can you tell me how it's derived? Kershaw: He gave me some numbers based on materials and labor. Petrie: I need a written breakdown of that. This was pulled at Planning Commission meeting because of items that BMP had not done. I don't think we need to talk about this now. Odom: I would appreciate it if you would expand on this. What are you talking about? Petrie: There was a stub out that was required into Brookhaven. Kershaw: It was partially constructed. Petrie: That was Millsap Avenue. There was 150 feet that was not constructed and they were to provide a cash contribution to do that which was not done. Odom: How old is this? Kershaw: 4 or 5 years. Warrick: Early 90's. Hoffman: So, we're asking that item to be taken care of before approving this. Warrick. The punch list had a couple of pages of items that the various divisions had outstanding issues on with this developer. All of those items, with the exception of the guarantee have been satisfied. We've been checking on these periodically. In 1998, the Subdivision Committee ruled that they could not go forward until these items were resolved. Odom: How many items? Warrick: There were about 5 sidewalk issues. There were 3 or 4 park issues. There was a landscape issue and various engineering items. These were for 6 or 7 different developments processed by this developer over a period of 10 years. We have resolved all of the issues with the exception of the guarantee for Millsap Drive. We expect the estimate will be agreed upon by the developer and the engineering staff before this item comes before the Planning Commission. Odom. That's fine with me. Good. • • • Minutes of Subdivision Committee November 10, 1999 Page 26 Petrie: They've made significant progress and I don't want to hold them out of process. They've done a lot of work. Thank you. Hoffman: Were there any landscape requirements? Warrick: Her plat review requirements will stand. Rogers: My plat review comments will stand. We still need an access easement between 83 and 84 in Pine Valley. There were 2 different areas that we talked about. Kershaw: I'll have the deed by the 15th. Rogers: We have the gazebo at Craft Park. Rick's been working with us on that and we still have to do the ramp and the top of the roof. We're working on the sidewalk this week. Kershaw. I'll come back and finish as soon as you're done. Public Comment None. MOTION Odom: I'll move to forward this to the Planning Commission provided they get the cost estimate and if that does not occur, this will automatically be pulled from the agenda. Ward: I'll second. Hoffman: I'll concur. Meeting adjourned at 10:04 a.m.