Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-06-15 - Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, June 15, 2000 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED LS 00-17.00: Lot Split (Gladden, pp 167) LS 00-18.00: Lot Split (Anders/Bryan, pp 141) LS 00-19.00: Lot Split (Baggett, pp 529) LSD 00-12 00• Large Scale Development (Gary Hampton Parking, pp 245) LSD 00-13.00: Large Scale Development (State Fair Cinema, pp 209) AD 00-21.00: Administrative Item (Fayetteville City Schools, pp 372) MEMBERS PRESENT Lee Ward Sharon Hoover Don Bunch STAFF PRESENT Tim Conklin Sara Edwards Jim Beavers Chuck Rutherford Kim Hesse Kim Rogers ACTION TAKEN Forwarded Forwarded Approved Approved Approved Approved MEMBERS ABSENT Lorel Hoffman Bob Estes STAFF ABSENT Perry Franklin Ron Petrie Subdivision Committee June 15, 2000 Page 2 LS 00-17.00: Lot Split (Gladden, pp 167) was submitted by George Faucette on behalf of Jo Arm Gladden for property located at Howard Nickle Road and Salem Road. The property is in the City growth area and contains approximately 70 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 40 acres and 30 acres. Ward: This is the meeting of the Subdivision Committee for June 15, 2000. We have six items on the agenda for today. The first item is LS 00-17 for Ann Gladden submitted by George Faucette. Staff? Conklin: Good morning. I'm Tim Conklin, City Planner for Fayetteville. The first item is a lot split. The request is to split into two tracts of 40 acres and 30 acres. The property is located at the edge of our planning area boundary. Howard Nickle Road comes to an end as an existing driveway giving access to the home located on tract A. The house is located in the area slated on our Master Street Plan as Howard Nickle Road. The applicant has met all requested requirements with the exception of conformance with the Master Street Plan. That is something that we do need to address this moming with regard to what our ordinance does require, and that's the right-of-way dedication for the Master Street Plan. Along the west boundary of tract B, this boundary right here, there is a requirement for a minor arterial with 45 feet of right-of-way to be dedicated. The applicant is contesting this dedication. The second requirement is for 110 feet of right-of-way running between the two lots to be split for a principal arterial. The applicant is also opposed to that. They have shown a 50 foot right-of-way dedication for Howard Nickle Road between the two lots and a 25 foot right-of-way proposed dedication along the west boundary of tract 13. Under our Unified Development Ordinance I am required as a City Planner to obtain the right-of-way when we do have a lot split. It's required by code. I could approve this administratively if they complied with that Master Street Plan right-of-way dedication requirement. They have informed me from the very beginning that they are opposed to dedicating that right-of-way. It's staffs position to require the dedication to be consistent with our past actions with regard to other lot splits and subdivisions in this area. Lot split 98-20, which is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Howard Nickle Road and Salem Road which required dedication of 55 feet from centerline to meet our Master Street Plan. Also, when Tom Terminella brought his subdivision in a few months ago, we did require the 55 feet from centerline also. Staff is recommending the applicant dedicate the right-of-way pursuant to the Master Street Plan and if the Subdivision Committee decides that they should dedicate a lesser amount of right-of-way that will have to be approved by the City Council. The rest are standard conditions of approval. The main issue is the right-of-way dedication. One issue that they will bring up, and it is an issue, is the right-of-way dedication does go through the existing house. As you are aware • • Subdivision Committee June 15, 2000 Page 3 Ward: with our Master Street Plan we do have flexibility in where we have that right-of- way dedicated and it could move further to the south to avoid that house. That is staff's presentation. Okay. Is there nothing else we need to address such as sidewalks or engineering? What we need to make a decision on is the right-of-way and how much to take or not take. Conklin: Yes. And I know the representative, George Faucette would like to make a presentation this morning. Ward: George, come on up here. Faucette: I would encourage you, regardless of what happens today since it will go to the Planning Commission regardless and to the City Council, that maybe you review it in detail because I don't want to read a four page letter But, let me hit the high points this morning if I may First of all, let me clarify one thing about the request It is for a lot split into two lots however, the intent is, there is a contract between two families, several families, to buy the 40 acres and divide it one more time into probably a 15 to 25 roughly. The request actually, and what you all end up recommending or not recommending and through to the Council, we want to hold whatever dedication is required or recommended, understand there is going to be one further split for this north 40 up here. That needs to be clear in your understanding the situation because I don't want these folks to come back later thinking they can make a 25 acre home site and say now all bets are off on whatever might have been recommended. There are several issues that I brought out in my letter and, again, I'll try to hit the high points on them. One is this issue of fairness in street dedication or taking of street dedications in the growth area. When the Master Street Plan was adopted in 1995, and there were a series of public hearings, I'm sure there were legal notices and notices in newspaper, but as a practical matter, people who live in the county, traditionally, have never understood that they were subject to city requirements. They don't have fire protection they don't have police protection they don't have sewer service and so they are less likely to read legal notices that might affect them. The other thing is that most issues for streets in the City of Fayetteville are on existing streets, not in total, but a fair number of them. And so, when the City somewhere along the line would decide to approve a city street or widen it or make it five lane or four lane, the owners at least get compensated for the extra take of land. In the case of this, not only are they not compensated for it in any manner, it's just a taking for a what if down the road, but further, they never had any direct notice. It's really dramatic in a case like this where there is a 100 foot slot that goes right through Subdivision Committee June 15, 2000 Page 4 the heart of this property. In terms of hardship, it's primarily one of economic hardship. This is good valuable land and if the requirement is made, and if it is made exactly where it's set up it represents in excess of $80,000.00 worth of value by my estimate using the acreage that would be taken plus some value for the house. Even if you veered that street by the house to where it barley missed it, it is certainly going to diminish the value There is a term or theory of nexis, I think it is, that has to do with is the requirement commiserate with what the request is. I think I'm sort of paraphrasing that somewhat correctly. In my judgement to take a 70 acre piece of property and divide it into three lots does not require a principal arterial. I think the primary reason, of most importance to me in this issue is, is it really necessary? As you have seen from the little map I sent along, I show the growth area on that map and I also show these streets that have been dedicated as per the Master Street Plan. That corner where the red line, the principal arterial meets the green line, I think it is, which is the minor arterial is absolutely the far northwest corner of the City's growth area. From that point going north and west it drops off into the Clear Creak Valley. There are fairly steep slopes and there is no, in my bias opinion, there is no rational basis to think this would become a major area of transportation in the City for a long time to come. Combined with the fact that there is already an existing improved street, Salem Road, which is shown in yellow on that map, that goes all the way down to Mount Comfort Road, and again is improved. There is already dedicated right-of-way for that part that is in the City and the part that is out. On the other hand, the minor arterial that goes down the west side, only about 1/4 mile of that 1.6 plus miles is improved already. It's gravel and narrow. Everything else would be brand new road. So, to my way of thinking, regardless of what is on the Master Street Plan that the engineers five, six, seven years ago drew on here, it is just not necessary. Beavers: I'd like to make the point that engineering is not involved in the Master Street Plan. Faucette: Well, I was told that it was done by staff, so I apologize. I thought it was done outside too, but someone said it was staff. Beavers: It may have been staff but not engineering. Conklin: It was Planning. Faucette: Planning? Conklin: Planning Commission. Subdivision Committee June 15,2000 Page 5 Faucette: Ward: Faucette: Ward: Sorry. I didn't mean to degrade your profession. So, what we are requesting is a lesser dedication of 50 feet on the east west arterial instead of 110 feet. And in effect the same thing down the west side of the 30 acres which would be 25 feet on the side of the property that is concerned here. The other 25 feet, ultimately, if it ever did get done, would come from the property owners to the west. In addition to that, the owners would put a covenant on the property for the full 110 feet and the 45 foot part on the 30 that comes down, saying they will not ever build any structures on that so that if the city ever, somewhere down the road twenty, thirty, fifty years from now, decides it really needs that to be a principal arterial and a minor arterial, that at the very least, there won't have to be compensation for improved structures on the property. There is precedent for that. About 3 years ago, and this is also in my letter, out on Gulley Road, exactly the same thing happened. I was involved in that. A 90 foot arterial at that point was shown going right through the heart of a 60 acre piece of property. The City Council passed, and Jerry Rose prepared some deed restrictions that did just that. There wasn't any dedication on that one by the way. None at all. It was just that there would be no structures built in the proposed street right of way. In this case, we are actually proposing a dedication of 50 feet, which is commiserate with a residential area and then a covenant not to construct any structures. The only other comment I would make to you is that in this 25 years or so that I have been back in Fayetteville and working on things, the Planning Commission and the City Council are generally called to make judgement calls on situations that fit circumstances. I would submit that if the written word of the ordinance fit every circumstance exactly, then there would not be a need for Planning Commissions necessarily. I think you all are called to protect the citizens of Fayetteville and the City of Fayetteville and the people that shop in Fayetteville in the case of the growth area, by making judgement calls where they are reasonable. I'm firmly convened that this is a reasonable request. I won't put any of the Planners by asking them their opinion because they are compelled to uphold the ordinances as written. But I think this is a reasonable request and I would request that you submit that recommendation for the lesser dedication to the Planning Commission and hope that they would also recommend to the City Council as we will have to go there also. Thank you George. Is there anyone else that would like to address us on this issue? Let me make two other brief comments, I'm sorry Lee. Go ahead. Subdivision Committee June 15, 2000 Page 6 Faucette: One is the Terminella situation I think is slightly different and, again, it is in my letter. There was already an improved road that fronted on that property in which there was already approximately 60 feet of right-of-way which is county road requirement on that property. So, the dedication was only for 25 more feet on his side alone. It's also a 10 lot subdivision versus 3 in this case. Potentially three lots. The little tract in front of this one, I don't agree you should have taken 55 from him. But he had an immediate need in terms of density, he had 2.5 acres to 2 lots. We have 70 acres going to three. So there is a density issue here that to my way of thinking, makes a little difference also. I would also suggest that he probably wouldn't mind if you only took 50 here. I think he is a spec builder and has a house for sale. Ward: Any questions for Mr. Faucette? Sharon? Hoover: No. Ward: Anyone from the public that would like to speak on this issue? Bassett: I'm Mary Bassett. I was raised on County Road 894 just east of Kindle Avenue. I've lived on that property since I was five years old and was raised in that area. I rode my horses all around this whole area including the Howard Nickle estate property. I would just like to say in my comments that certainly for the arterial to go through this property seems unnecessary when we do have Salem Road that is parallel, already there. A paved that could certainly be the arterial road down instead of taking people's property that is existing that hasn't been zoned, I feel this green arterial road going down that is proposed. And certainly to split a property with 110 feet seems very unfair. Ward: Thank you. Any other public comment? Seeing none I'll close the floor to public comment. Tim, out in the county, what is the county requiring as far as street right-of-way? Fifty feet, 60 feet? What would they require if someone was putting a street through? Conklin: Recently the county and cities got together and changed the way they reviewed lot splits and subdivisions. They all come to the city first for our regulations and then whatever we require goes to the county. It's Just changed. Typically for Just a local access it was 60 feet. Faucette: Tim, isn't it true though, that it's 60 feet now with bar ditches but it's 50 if it's fully improved? Subdivision Committee June 15, 2000 Page 7 Conklin: Faucette: Ward: I'm not up on the county standards. I thought I had read that recently, Lee, that it is still 60 if there are bar ditches but if you fully improve the street it's 50 feet. If Tim doesn't know, I shouldn't be trying to state those things. He knows more of that than I do. This is going to go to the full Planning Commission and I'm sure it will have to go to the City Council if the Planning Commission does anything different than what Tim is recommending because of our regulations and policies, but in my case, you have 70 acres that you are splitting a couple of times, which still leaves 15 acres, 20 acres, 40 acres, 30 acres, that to me is not really a subdivision. It's hard to say it's a lot split even. In my case, I'll be sympathetic at least. Especially if there are no structures built on that and we get some kind of guarantee that no other structures can be built on that 110 feet that we do require. None of us knows what the future 20 years from now will be and that could be a tremendous population out there with all kinds of homes and we don't know that. I don't see the need of that right now but I'm just one person. It's a little hard to understand it all Hoover: Yes. That's what I'm looking at. Ward: It's a little more complicated than what it seems when you Just glance at it. Hoover: And I'm a little confused. Where does Fayetteville end and the growth area boundary begin? And I haven't seen the Master Street Plan to see where all of this ties together. Conklin: This black line right here is our city limits. Faucette. This property is right here. Hoover: So where is that on here? Conklin: It's right here. Hoover: Okay. Conklin: Here's our city limits and there is our planning area boundary. Faucette: It's about a mile north of the city limits. • • • Subdivision Committee June 15, 2000 Page 8 Hoover: Conklin: Hoover: Conklin: Faucette: Conklin: Faucette: Conklin: Beavers: Faucette: Conklin: Faucette: And Howard Nickle Road is the red line? Howard Nickle is the red line and ends right here. At the end of the road is the end of it? Yes. This is the extension that the city is building right now for access to the school up to Salem Village. But isn't there something, Charlie mentioned something about that is not totally built to city specs right now? Yes. It's just an access road to the school isn't it? It's a public street. I think it's 36 feet. It's built to city standards. It's 36 foot with 10 foot trails. Just not built to the minor arterial standards. That is the question I was answering for you. It's not a four lane road going up to that school at this time. But if I may, the point here is that right now Howard Nickle ends here. We are talking about another 1/4 mile until you are outside of the growth area even This street is already improved coming down Salem. Goodman: Can we have a recap, we went to the wrong room, on what is going on with this property? Ward: Conklin: Go ahead Tim. Sure. This is a request for a lot split. They have 70 acres and they want to split it into 2 tracts of land. There is a Master Street Plan that the City of Fayetteville adopted in 1995. It functionally classifies streets in Fayetteville For this piece of property it has two streets that are functionally classified that adjoin and go through it. One is Howard Nickle Road which is a principal arterial and requires 110 feet of right-of-way and is a four lane road in the future planning. On the west boundary line there is a minor arterial that is a four lane road and requires 90 • • • Subdivision Committee June 15, 2000 Page 9 Goodman: MOTION: Hoover: Conklin: Hoover: Bunch: Faucette: Bunch: Conklin: Ward: feet of right of way. In order for me, as City Planner, to approve a lot split administratively I am required by the city ordinance to have the applicant owner dedicate right-of-way to meet those requirements. That is the only way I can approve that. I have no other authority under this ordinance to waive lesser right- of-way or not require any right-of-way. The applicant is going through this process because the Planning Commission would have to recommend a lesser dedication. The City Council would have to approve that if that is the case. My recommendation is based on a lot of research and time. In order to be consistent and treat everybody equally with regard to our Master Street Plan we need to require the right-of-way dedication. We did require it directly adjacent to this to the east. So, it's hard in my mind to make a recommendation to require it for one person and not require it for another. I don't have the authority or ability to change a city law. If the law needs to be changed the City Council needs to change that. That is a recap of where we are at. Thank you. I'm Debbie Goodman. Can I make a motion that this move on to Planning Commission as subject to staff's recommendations? I think Mr. Faucette was looking for a recommendation from the Subdivision Committee with regard to should a lesser dedication be granted. If you are uncomfortable with that, you don't have to do anything. This is too quick. I would like to take a little more time. I don't know how Don feels? Seeing how I just got my packet this morning, l haven't had a chance to review it. You all just got that? I did, yes. I'm sitting in for an absent member. We can forward it on. I hate to delay Mr. Faucette and his client. I think you will have a full discussion at Planning Commission on what to do. For the legal part it looks like his idea of giving a deed with not having anything constructed on the property would be an idea that would come into play in my mind and would be something that would be required because it is shown on the Subdivision Committee June 15, 2000 Page 10 Master Street Plan as being a 110 foot major arterial going through there. I can see that with the growth that we have that sometime way off in the future this could be something that we would need. It's hard not to require that or make a compromise anyway. But in my mind, I'm not fully wanting to take the whole 110 feet right now. And I'm not sure about the other road There again, I think I need to study this a little more. I really need to go out there and look at it. Faucette: I'd be happy to conduct a tour. Ward: It is more complicated than when you first glance at it. So your motion is to send it onto the full Planning Commission without a recommendation at this time? Hoover: Yes. Bunch: Second. Ward: I'll concur on that. It's not that you didn't do a very good job, you did a very good Job explaining it, it's dust complicated. Faucette: Would you all like to go out there? I would be more than happy to take you on the property and show you all of my very bias perspectives as to why that request is valid and reasonable. Conklin: Once this goes to Planning Commission, there will be a Planning Commission tour on the trolley. Faucette: You will actually go out there? Conklin: Yes. We will get on the trolley and drive down it. Faucette: Go down that green line on there too as far as you can. Thank you very much. Conklin: We may need a four wheel drive trolley. Faucette: And Planning Commission is the 20? Conklin: Yes. Faucette: Thank you again. • • Subdivision Committee June 15, 2000 Page 11 LS 00-18.00: Lot Split (Anders/Bryan, pp 141) was submitted by Patricia Anders for property located at 4650 E. Gulley Road. The property is in the City growth area and contains approximately 5.33 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 4.33 acres and 1 acre. Ward: Next on the agenda today is LS 00-18 submitted by Patricia Anders. Tim? Conklin: This property is located also in our city growth area and is approximately 5.33 acres. The request is to split the property into a tract of 4.33 acres and 1 acre The newly created lot will be accessed by an access easement that will be filed concurrently with the lot split. Due to this lot being located in our growth area, sidewalks and parks fees are not required. Staff is recommending forwarding this to the Planning Commission. One condition to address is the request for a variance from our suburban subdivision regulations that require that where public sanitary sewer is not available the minimum lot size shall be 1.5 acres In the past, lot splits have been approved without meeting this requirement due to the county approval for smaller lots. Now that we require these lot splits to come through the city process first, I have this ordinance that says they have to be 1.5 acres. It's my opinion that we do have to grant a variance on that. Let me just explain that a little more. Everything the county would approve, and they would approve lots that were smaller than our ordinance allows. Since the county is a higher level of government I would go along with their regulations on that. Since the county has not looked at these, I think we need to look at granting variances for them. The other thing is, I think it would be a good idea to bring that ordinance to Planning Commission to have it amended. We amended the ordinance for septic systems inside the city limits to base it on what the county sanitarian would approve with regard to lot size, however, we did not amend the ordinance that applied outside the city limits. So, inside the city limits you can have less than 1.5 acres outside you can't. I think those two need to be consistent. That's my recommendation. Ward: What do we require now as far as inside the city, as far as lot size? Conklin: There is no minimum. It's based on county approval. Ward: And I assume the property has city water out there? Or municipal water? Beavers: We will need to talk about that. Conklin: That is all I have. • Ward: No sidewalk issues? • • • Subdivision Committee June 15, 2000 Page 12 Rutherford: That is correct. Ward: Okay. Jim? Beavers: On the water, water is available to be extended from Gulley Road. To get back to this lot, there will need to be a private easement from tract 2 written to tract 1. Are the Anders' or Bryan's here? Bryant: Yes. Ward: So there will be a need for some type of easement for the water line going back to that particular tract? Beavers: Yes. Bryant: There is a water easement already granted or assigned. Beavers: It's not shown on this drawing. Bryant: Okay. It will be by Planning Commission. Ward: Okay. Beavers: The existing 20 foot utility easement on the east side, Tim if you could help me, Ron has a note here that that should be increased to 25 foot? Bryant: Been done. Beavers: Again, the copies we have don't show that. Ron is on vacation and I'm filling in for him. The access easement, I see one on the drawing already, is there another one required? Conklin: He doesn't have it on the drawings. Edwards: We will require that it be filed with the lot split. Beavers: Okay. Well, the waterline would be a private easement from tract 2 to tract 1. It will be a service line. It wouldn't be a public line. That needs to be 10 feet in width. Bryant: Can I respond to that. My name is James Bryant. I talked with Ron quite a bit • Subdivision Committee June 15, 2000 Page 13 about this and what we had talked about doing was actually putting a 2 inch public line back there. The idea being, and we did increase it to a 25 foot easement along the east side. I had the easement signed here. But, put a 2 inch public line with the idea being there is one gentleman back to the north of that property that is still on a well. He would like to hook onto that line as well. We have looked at that and pulled up charts and all. Ron said a 2 inch line would meet that requirement. Beavers: Okay. Bryant: And I did get copies of both of these easements into the office. Beavers: Did you get whoever did your plat for you to show that easement on here? Bryant: I was told that I didn't need to have that done. Is that something we have to do on the survey? Beavers: Yes. I don't see how you can show on the survey a 20 foot easement then file another document that says it's a 25 foot easement. Conklin: So you are looking for a 25 foot utility easement? Beavers: Where the 20 foot is. Conklin: Where the 20 foot is. That is going to be a public water line that is going to go through there. If you would just have your surveyor show that on the survey so when this gets filed it's correct. Bryant: Again, I was told by Ed, I believe, in whatever office he is in, that developed this for me, that we did not need to do that. So now we are changing that and need to have the survey redone? . Beavers: Yes. Ed works for me and I will take care of that. On your meter location, our meter reader will have to have access to the meters. Will that be through this access easement shown up here on the north? Bryant: Yes. Beavers: Okay. Bryant: The meters will be placed at the northeast corner of the property and there will be • Subdivision Committee June 15, 2000 Page 14 one for my lot and then also for the gentleman who will hook on. We will just put both meters right there. Beavers: Okay. Bryant: Basically what he is doing is he is giving me the access easement and I'm going to pay for the waterline for him to hook onto. Beavers: That is all from engineering. Ward: Thank you Jim. Mr. Bryant, is there anything else you would like to add on this as the applicant? Bryant: No. Ward: Okay. Do you understand the things that we are requiring so far as far as on the survey itself? The engineering staff is saying it has to be shown on there because that is going to be recorded? Bryant: I'm understanding it, but understand, I was told differently and that has not been the first time quite honestly. Ward: So, if you will, show that. Is there anyone from the public that would like to address us on this issue? Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public comment. Beavers: Let me ask one more question. Tim, if you can help me out on this, Ron has a note here that the access easement needs to be on the east. Did you all discuss that at Plat Review on the easement? Conklin: I don't recall that. Ron will be back Monday. We may need to get with Ron and see what he is talking about. Hoover: I have one question. I'm reading the 1.5 acres now why are you supporting this request of one acre rather than 1.5? Conklin: Because the city has in the past gone with what the county has approved which has been less than 1.5 acres. They approved that at the county level first Now we have switched it and they come to us first and I'm looking at our ordinances and pretty much we said whatever the county approves we bring forward and check with our Master Street Plan for access and that kind of thing. Now they are coming to us first and I have this regulation and it requires something larger than • • Subdivision Committee June 15, 2000 Page 15 what the county was approving in the past. There is a conflict between the county and the city and I'm trying to do my job here and I don't want to violate any ordinances. I want to make everybody aware that there is an ordinance on the books and I have advertised and will bring this to the next Planning Commission as a cleanup item if you would like to do that. I can show you where we changed that ordinance for inside the city limits septic systems but for some reason we did not change that outside the city limits. MOTION: Hoover: Okay. I'll make a motion that LS 00-18 move onto Planning Commission subject to staff conditions. Bunch: I'll second. Ward: So we are doing is recommending that we approve the variance that is recommended here and also, let's go back again, it says a private easement and we are really talking about putting a 25 foot easement with a public line. Is that the differences we are talking about here? Conklin: Yes. Ward: And you will get this all worked out between now and Planning Commission? Conklin: Yes. Mr. Petrie will be back and will clarify where the easement is. Ward: And I'll concur. Bunch: While we are at it, we will officially request, Tim, that you bring forward the cleanup of the ordinance. Conklin: Yes. Ward: Thank you Mr. Bryant. Bunch: This is subject to county approval of the perk conditions and all of that? Conklin: That is correct. • • Subdivision Committee June 15, 2000 Page 16 LS 00-19.00: Lot Split (Baggett, pp 529) was submitted by Ray Baggett for property located at 3499 E Huntsville Road The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 4.5 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 4.0 acres and 0.5 acres. Ward: On item number three LS 00-19 for Baggett. Tim, what do you have on this? Conklin: This is a lot split request to split the property into two tracts of 4.0 acres and 0.5 acre tract. This split meets all of the zoning requirements. The applicant has satisfied all of staff requirements. Staff is recommending approval at the Subdivision Committee today. There are no conditions to address. That is all that planning has. There may be other staff comments from other divisions. Ward: Okay. Chuck? Rutherford: Mr. Baggett is currently working on getting the sidewalks installed. He has the forms all set. He is just waiting for the weather to be right to pour it. The requirement will be, before it's filed, that that sidewalk be in place and he is working towards that. Ward: Jim? Beavers: No comments. Ward: Kim, is this the one you want to talk on? Rogers: Yes. The public minutes of May 31, 2000 states that Rogers had no comment. I did talk to Sara Edwards about this and she did have my comment sheet of Parks Fees of $470.00. Conklin: That is condition number three in the staff report. Ward: Okay. Is the applicant here today? Baggett: Yes. Ward: Please come forward. Give us your names for the record. Baggett: Ray Baggett. • Ward: Okay. Is there anything else you would like to add as far as this lot split is concerned? • • • Subdivision Committee June 15, 2000 Page 17 Baggett: The only thing is we really wondered about the Parks Fee. Why do we pay that? Ward: Kim, can you tell us why the parks fee is required on this? Rogers: When you split a property in half and it's going to be used for residential living unit we charge a parks fee for that residence so the owner is required to pay $470.00 for that. Baggett: I really don't understand that. Conklin: Every additional dwelling unit that you construct in Fayetteville puts increased demand on our parks system. We have an ordinance that states you either pay money in lieu of dedicating land. The parks are not asking you to dedicate land for a park on this piece of property they are asking to help fund future park acquisitions and building new parks in this area. That's what they are looking for. It applies to everybody. Splitting this property, you do plan to build another house down here so that is another family that will be using parks. Mrs. Baggett: I guess. I'm June Baggett. I'm Ray's wife. It just seems like an extra burden to us. We feel like we have already gone above and beyond the call of duty. We've given the land across the front, completely given it. Baggett: It's about 1/4 of an acre. Mrs. Baggett: Then we are putting this 6 foot sidewalk which seems a little excessive to us, all the way across. Then to have a park fee, I guess, we have lived in Fayetteville all of our lives and this is land that Ray was born on even, and we just want to sell our old house and build a new one and it seems like there is fee this and fee that. We appreciate all the work that you all have done for this and we do intend to do whatever you require so we can have our little dream house there. We just wanted to say that we felt like it's a little excessive. Ward: These are rules and regulations and policies that have been approved over many years by the City Council and there are ways to change those but everyone is required to meet them. We don't have any leeway. If you were taking this piece of land and dividing it and making a subdivision out of it, each lot would be required to pay a parks fee for each lot. Mrs. Baggett: Are we going to have to pay another one when we get the building permit for the other? • • Subdivision Committee June 15, 2000 Page 18 Conklin: No. You are paying the parks fee for this additional lot you are creating which will result in another house being built in Fayetteville. The existing house already has the parks issue taken care of. Mrs. Baggett: Okay. Conklin: It's based on new development. How do we keep having enough park land as we continue to grow. This is something that the City Council adopted. Either you as a subdivider with the approval of the Parks and Recreation Board and Planning Commission, dedicate a new park to the City of Fayetteville, and in this case you wouldn't do that, or you pay a fee. That is how we keep up as we grow to make sure we have adequate parks. Mrs. Baggett: Okay. Ward: If you agree with these standards and recommendations, then we can approve it at this level. If you would like to change that or have it looked at, it can go to the full Planning Commission and then City Council and you can try to get it changed there. Mrs. Baggett: We want to get it done today. Baggett: Ward: MOTION: Hoover: Bunch: Ward: We aren't getting any younger. We better not let $470.00 stop us. I'll ask if there is any public comment? Seeing none 1'll close the floor to the public and bring it back to the Committee. I'll make a motion that we approve LS 00-19 subject to the conditions. Second. I'll concur. So it's taken care of. Mrs. Baggett: Thank you. Baggett: • Conklin: What do we do now. We are ignorant, what do we do now? Well, you have your lot split approved. Once you have met all of your conditions, your sidewalk is constructed, you will apply for a building permit for your new • Subdivision Committee June 15, 2000 Page 19 house. Are you selling this other property? Baggett: We will try to. Conklin: When you get ready to have deeds prepared, bring it to our office and we can stamp it approved and then that can be filed over at the county. We can do that for both deeds if you create a deed for this one also. Mrs. Baggett: We don't have to do anything till then? Conklin: We will make sure all the conditions are met. And Chuck, you have indicated that the sidewalk is going in right now? Rutherford: They are in the process of constructing it. Typically we have said that it's completion time will be at the time of filing of the lot split. Baggett: We are supposed to pour in the morning. • Conklin: If you have any questions, call me or Sara and we will walk you through the process. Thank you. Baggett: Thank you all very much. • • • • Subdivision Committee June 15, 2000 Page 20 LSD 00-12.00: Large Scale Development (Gary Hampton Parking, pp 245) was submitted by Charlie Venable on behalf of The City of Fayetteville for property located at 2790 N. Salem Road. The property is zoned P-1, Institutional and contains approximately 8.23 acres. The request is for an additional lot containing a 147 parking spaces. Ward: The next item on the agenda is LSD 00-12. Tim? Conklin: Our Parks and Recreations Division has approached Planning Division with regard to increasing the parking lot for the Gary Hampton Softball Complex. Currently this facility is not providing adequate parking when they are having tournaments and other activities at this location. They currently have 245 parking spaces and that includes sharing the parking spaces with Holcomb Elementary School. They would like to add an additional 147 parking spaces. I will let Parks and Recreations Division explain the demand for the parking and how much is needed and I can go over, after that, how we calculated what is allowed for parking at this facility. Connie Edmonston is here, the Parks and Recreations Director and also Kim Rogers. Edmonston: I'm Connie Edmonston, Superintendent of Parks and Recreation. This is Kim Rogers. Ward: Edmonston: Can you give us a brief outline of what you are needing done and why. As you know, we have just now completed our softball complex and we have started our first season there starting in February. This so one of those oops things. We really had not looked at the parking situation because parking was already completed before I came on board and many of our staff had taken this project. We just didn't realize how many cars come to the softball field. It's not like the old days when the parents and all the family loaded up in the car and went to the softball game. You know, mom comes from work, dad comes from work. There might be a binuclear family so that you might have as many as four parents coming to a ball game. Then if you have an older sister, like my son does, you have her driving her vehicle there, then the grandparents that come. We just did not anticipate the parking that was necessary even on our league days, Monday through Thursday. We came up with some figures that we think are fairly accurate and show what happens with each team. And of course, it's hard to judge an average team as every team is different. Right now we have four fields there. So there are eight teams that will play there at any given time. However, the big parking problem comes in-between ball games. When those eight teems are finishing up their games and the other eight teems are coming early to warm up and be ready to play their ball game. Therefore, we have sixteen teems there. Subdivision Committee June 15, 2000 Page 21 Given that most of our teems have 15 players per teem that makes 240 participants. Then we looked at the number of spectators. Probably the average number of spectators per child or per person, is probably around 4. So we took 4 times the 240 to get the 960 spectators. Then we have staff there including the umpires the score keepers, the concession workers, parks site supervisor and park staff. That equaled 1,216. That is Monday thru Thursday. Sometimes on Friday we have a rain out makeup game. That does not take into account the weekends that we utilize that ball field for. During weekends we have anywhere from 60 to 84 teems that come in. These are used for adults. We estimated that there are around 25 people that come with a teem. Whether they are participants or whatever. Youth numbers may be a little bit up but we put it according to 25 per teem. If there are 60 teams times 25 plus the staff that equals 1,516 or 379 spots that are required. Or if we have a match tournament, and by the way we are hosting a world tournament here in September which we are really proud of to have received a bid on, for men's 35 and over. So, that will be a huge tournament. Probably not as many teams but the glory of having a world series tournament just delights us to death. Any way, 84 teams times 25 equals 2,100 plus 16 staff people. So that is 529 that is in demand. So, you can see Monday through the weekends we have anywhere from 304 to 529 parking spaces that are in demand. Right now we have 245. What it has created is, many times we have trouble with people parking illegally on school grounds. They are parking on the sidewalks and grass areas, just anywhere that they can find. It has created some hassle. We want to have a good relationship with the school system. They have been very good to us. When we visited with them about this parking lot, they have a kind of a problem in their area when it's raining. That ground is so soggy that this parking lot would be available for them to also utilize the blacktop area for their recess and PE classes or whatever. We are going to put a gate on it and it will be roped off. That is why we didn't want so many islands in there because we would like to put some basketball goals in there to enhance it for their purpose also. That is where we are at. We visited with the school and are in the process of obtaining a lease where this parking lot would come. The papers are before Mr. Carr and Ruby Moore right now. There is a stipulation, one thing they wanted to make certain of is that all the construction is done before school starts, which I understand. So, in our lease agreement we did commit that the city street division who will build this for us, that they would have it built by September 1, 2000. That is where we are at. Conklin: Connie, can you kind of go over this waiver of the internal landscaping of the parking lot and why that is being requested? Or Kim? Edmonston: Let me let Kim go over that. She has been working on that. • • • Subdivision Committee June 15, 2000 Page 22 Rogers: We are requesting a waiver to not to have the trees on the islands or not to have an island over here. What we are proposing is instead of the 15 required trees we are going to plant 25 trees in the parking lot. We have gone over this with Kim Hesse and Lisa Paschal on what types of trees to put there and what would be best for shade for the parking lot. Ward: Rogers: Edmonston: Conklin: And the main reason for this is so the kids from the elementary school won't have islands there? They can play kickball and softball in that area? So the kids won't have islands out there. They can have basketball goals. Right. It will have a dual purpose. Not only that, just one step further too, we like the trees around the side to screen us a little bit from the softball fields, from those balls from the heavy duty hitters that might accidently go that way. And also for our neighbors to the east, so we can shield our parking lot and activities a little bit from them. There is a proposed six foot high berm with landscape barrier. This is Crystal Springs Phase II along this east side. For the record let me just walk through the ordinances for everybody just to make sure everybody understands how we are calculating those parking units and what ordinances we are using. Under our Parking and Loading Regulations, we are using what is called all other recreational uses, and that is 1 parking space per 4 occupants. That is why I had Connie look at how many people are coming to this facility. It's my understanding that it has been a problem out there. They are driving off of Salem Road and parking along the road and all around the ball fields. Truly there is a situation out there where there is not enough parking. So, that is the ratio that we are using. It's tied to the number of people going to the facility and based on this estimate from Parks and Recreation Division, they justify the 390 spaces. If you look at the 84 teams times .5 you come up with approximately 2,116 people at peak times. So, if the Subdivision Committee is comfortable with that this is the ratio we are using with the number of people. With regards to this distance from Crystal Springs Phase II under § 163.23 it talks about non residential uses and R districts, I have used outdoor spectator facilities with the minimum separation of 50 feet. I have asked them to pull this back 50 feet and put the berm there so when the cars do park, you don't have the headlights shining into their back yards. I think that will help alleviate that. This is a non lighted parking lot. It's in a P-1 zoning district and recreational uses are allowed so zoning is okay. We Just need to understand how we have calculated the parking and what setback I'm using under this code for this R-1 zoning district. Because we are asking for the trees not to be planted in islands in the parking lot it does need to go to the Planning • • Subdivision Committee June 15, 2000 Page 23 Bunch: Edmonston: Ward: Hesse: Ward: Edmonston: Conklin: Edmonston: Conklin: Hoover: • Conklin: Commission next Monday. There is a misprint in here where it says 1 space for 400 occupants? It's 1 for 4. Kim, would you like to make some comments about this? Just that I fully support it. The whole issue is that ordinance we are trying to get changed. We have granted this type of variance before and the end result is that you are getting larger trees along the green area that are providing better shade and they have a better chance for survival. I think it works very well and I support it. I do know personally, I went out there when the high school junior varsity girls were playing softball and I would show up for a game on the adjoining field and the parking lot would be packed. You would have all the people from Bentonville there for the their girls and all the grandparents, brothers and sisters and so. The stands were packed full on one field and they had all the parking lot taken up for just one field. The other people coming in for the other fields had to park everywhere, all in the yards and down the roads and everywhere else. So, I saw first hand the problem. I think it's a real good idea to let them use this property for all kinds of games making it a dual purpose. It won't just sit there all day not being used. The schools have been most gracious to consent to this. I see Fred Turrentine is here. I don't know if he has any comments. But it's just one of those oops deals. We had no idea that the cars were going to eat us up like they have. You have done some research about other facilities. Yes. Sherwood put a 5-plex in and they provided 750 parking spots whereas Russelville put in 500 parking spots for their new 4-plex. And we still might be behind some. We still might be short. We are looking at 390 total parking spaces and that is sharing with the school parking already. The school parking lot adjoins here? See this white line here. • Subdivision Committee June 15, 2000 Page 24 Hoover: Oh, that's the parking lot? Rogers: The school let us use their parking lot even, over by the school area. Ward: Is there anyone from the public that would like to address us on this issue? Turrentine: We are most appreciative of the variance not to have islands so we can utilize the parking area for our recess and PE purposes. Ward: Is there anyone else from the public that wants to address us on this issue? Seeing none I'll close the floor and bring it back to the Committee. MOTION: Hoover: I'll make a motion to forward LSD 00-12 to the planning commission. Bunch: Second. • Ward: I'll concur. Thank you • • • • Subdivision Committee June 15, 2000 Page 25 LSD 00-13.00: Large Scale Development (State Fair Cinema, pp 209) was submitted by Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of State Fair Cinema for property located at 3352 N. Hwy 112. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 29.56 acres. The request is to add an additional movie screen. Ward: The next item on the agenda today is LSD 00-13 which is for the Hwy 112 Cinema. Tim, what do you have on that? Conklin: This is a LSD located on Hwy 112 at Exit 15. Currently there is one screen with a projection room and concession stand. When the theater was built, they planned to have two screens and the site has been graded already There is grass growing all over this area right now but it has been graded for the cars to park and the projection house actually has a room for the projector to sit to shoot the movie towards the new screen. We are asking that they show their paved driveway. And Al, if you could just show the limits of where you are going to be paving. They are proposing a gravel parking area I did bring this to Subdivision Committee about 3 or 4 weeks ago and talked about not paving this area where the cars park. We really want to reduce the amount of run off and it won't be used every day and the cars drive slow enough that dust shouldn't be of a concern. Just by coincidence Don Nelms was at that meeting with another issue and I did bring up the issue of dust because I don't want dust flying over onto his new cars in his auto park. He had no problem or opposition to allowing this to be gravel. That is all that planning has on this project. Ward: Rutherford: Ward: Beavers: Al: Chuck? They have put the corrections on the plan that I asked for. One thing I want to remind Al of and I told Chris previously, where the sidewalk comes around to the south, we are currently working with Nelms and they are in the process of constructing their sidewalk right now and we are going to have to work that out to where that sidewalk lines up. Because there are some drainage issues right there in that sanitary sewer pump station, I think it's best to go behind it. I told Chris that, and I think it's going to happen very shortly, they are in the process of looking over it right now, they are planning to be out there and agree on the appropriate place is to line it up. Other than that, that's all I have. Jim? Al, is this 6 inch water existing or proposed? Across from Hwy 112? • Subdivision Committee June 15, 2000 Page 26 Beavers: Al: Beavers: Al: Beavers: Al: • Beavers. Conklin: • Ward: Beavers: Ward: Hesse: Beavers: Hesse: Al: It seems like it would have to be existing. You have an existing projection house. Is that existing or proposed? That is proposed. Our regulations as far as dead end lines is they have to be 8 inch for fire. Al, Ron had requested that Chris supply a drainage permit application and we have not received that yet. Okay. If you will notice, most of the site, 60% of the site is in the floodplain including your proposed detention pond. Ron has been dealing with Chris and he thinks the detention pond might function better if it was located immediately west of the projection house in the area that is not in the floodplain. We are not saying it has to be there, we just want you to investigate that. Okay. Moving it back in the area between the asphalt drive and the projection house. We do have standard condition number six that a floodplain development permit is required which I'm sure Crafton, Tull is fully aware of, prior to doing any work in the floodplain. Is that it Jim? That's it. Kim? Jim, will there be a grading permit? Yes it was. 1 heard Tim say most of the grading is done but there would be grading for the detention pond, where ever it is. The rest of this is already graded. Okay. My concern was, AI, if we would need additional tree preservation for the additional grading that the contractors are aware of what is going on. There is not a lot of detail on here. If you could assure that. You want me to show detail on here? • • • Subdivision Committee June 15, 2000 Page 27 Hesse: Conklin: Edwards: Conklin: Hesse: Conklin: Ward: Al: Ward: Beavers: Ward: Beavers: Conklin: Hesse: If you could have detail on there. Also the tree in the middle of the site, there is one large tree shown, we will need to show protection around it. You have shown protection on all the other trees but we need it shown on that one. Screening, is the screening adequate? They are showing trees along the highway. I think the trees you see along Hwy 112 are required in the Commercial Design Standards, I for every 30 feet. Is that correct Sara? Yes. They are not removing any trees, correct? Right. They are preserving every tree existing on the site. Any other staff comment? Al, do you have any other comments? I don't believe so. Is there any public comment on this issue? Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public comment. What, Jim, is the 8 inch water line, that's a city requirement as far as it being a dead end line? Yes sir. That is in our water standards that were approved by the City Council in 1997. If this was a loop line, for instance, if this line came all the way through the property and through the property to the water line on Don Nelms property it could be 6 inches. Go back again to where you are proposing to put the drainage or the retention pond. Just to let Al know, Chris and Ron have been talking about moving it from here to here. We aren't saying you have to do that, and I don't think Ron is either, but we asked Chris to look at that. Chris Parton is another engineer with Crafton, Tull. I have one other question. Kim, on the trees that we are showing along Hwy 112, have they provided you the details of what species those are going to be? No. That is on my first comment of species. Also, I have talked to them about a water source. Typically we require some method of irrigation, a spicket or • • Subdivision Committee June 15, 2000 Page 28 something. That is a big distance from anywhere. I'm concerned of the livelihood of the trees. Conklin: They are required to have that by ordinance right? Hesse: They are required to provide for irrigation. Al: You want us to show a hose bib up here? Hesse: That's what we were talking about, at least we need to make sure there is a method of watering the trees. Conklin: I would think so too. There is no reason to plant trees if they are going to die. So you are saying a hose bib every 100 feet. You will need to add that as a condition of approval. Conklin: Then Kim, you will approve the species of the trees? Hesse: Yes, and Al, it needs to be a hardwood shade tree. The species needs to be on there prior to any grade work, right? Before the Planning Commission. Conklin: This can be approved at this level. That is why I'm trying to get everything on the record so when we go out there six months from now, Sara and 1 can make sure it's not a Bradford Pear tree growing out there. Ward: Let's go over all the additional things we are going to require to have done if we are going to approve it at this level at this time. Tim, do you have that? Conklin: Sara does. Change the 6 inch water line that dead ends to an 8 inch line. Look at moving the detention pond out of the 100 year floodplain to the west and work with engineering to see if they can work that in a different location and agree to that location. Provide fencing details, show protection fencing on the grading plan. As a condition of approval, hardwood shade trees be planted along Hwy 112. Provide a water source for those trees in the form of a hose bib every 100 feet. Anything else Sara? Edwards: No. Conklin: I think that's it. • Ward: I'll bring it back to the committee. • • Subdivision Committee June 15, 2000 Page 29 MOTION: Hoover: I make a motion to approve LSD 00-13 subject to the original conditions of approval and the additional conditions of approval that Tim Conklin just went over. Bunch: Second. Ward: I'll concur. Thanks Al. Conklin: Al, we will need a revised plan for our file showing all of the changes I just went over on the conditions of approval. • • Subdivision Committee June 15, 2000 Page 30 AD 00-21.00: Administrative Item (Fayetteville City Schools, pp 372) was submitted by the City of Fayetteville School District for property located on Hwy 45 east adjacent to Vandergriff Elementary School. The property is zoned P-1, Institutional The request is to delay construction of the sidewalks on Hwy 45 which was a condition of Large Scale Development approval for the East Side Middle School (LSD 98-11.00). Ward: The last item we have is AD 00-21 for the Fayetteville City Schools out on Hwy 45. Tim? Conklin: That is correct. Chuck Rutherford has been contacted by the school district and there is an issue with regard to timing of the installation of the sidewalk. I will let Chuck go over the situation with you then the school district can explain their problem with constructing the sidewalk currently. This is at the new Middle School, McNair. The McNair Middle School at Hwy 45 and Hwy 265. Currently the Arkansas Highway Department is widening Hwy 265. I'll turn it over to Chuck Rutherford. Rutherford: Conklin: Rutherford: Beavers: Ward: At time of large scale development the sidewalk was required along the frontage of Hwy 45. The school district is in the process right now of constructing the sidewalk east of the driveway and they have asked if they can postpone constructing the sidewalk to the west of the driveway, going towards Hwy45 until the time the Highway Department builds the sidewalk on the new highway widening project. The reason for asking for this is the sidewalk would be built and lead the kids to open land. There would be no sidewalk to connect to it until the Highway Department builds theirs. The Highway Department, and 1 just got this information from the engineering department, according to their plan will build a sidewalk approximately 735 feet from the intersection of Hwy 45. That will be from the centerline. Of Hwy 265, I'm sorry. Do you know where that would go up to? Like I say, I just got this information this morning. I'll go get those plans. How many feet of sidewalk are we talking about? Rutherford: A portion of a 10 foot sidewalk then it narrows down to a 6 foot. • Conklin: 300 feet. • • • • Subdivision Committee June 15, 2000 Page 31 Branner: That's almost 195 feet at 10 foot wide. Rutherford: Then it goes in here when it goes to 6 feet. Branner: This sidewalk, currently it would lead the kids down to a spot from the school that you can't see from the school because of the trees in place here. Some concern about supervision and some concern about where can they go from that point if they do walk down there. If they try to get to that store at the corner or the shopping development they have to cross Hwy 45 at an unsupervised crossing. There is also a grove of trees here that will extend into that sidewalk we will have to cut out a few trees to make that 10 foot trail work through there. We have gotten some comments from people during construction, local citizens have contacted the schools about protecting those trees and we had it in the plans to save those things but at the time we laid it all out we just realized it in the last week or so that the sidewalk actually goes through there. Just to throw that out there. Bunch: Where do the kids currently cross the street? Branner: They currently don't. Bunch: If this is delayed, what is being done now? One of the schools has not been completed yet. Turrentine: What we would do, the 10 foot and the 6 foot is great. We have money, it's just strictly timing. We are going to funnel children to a point, to a dead end point and they are either going to cross Hwy 45 trying to get to crossover developments with no crosswalk, and how are they going to do this safely? Child safety is our only concern. We will put the sidewalk in and put it in now if that is a must. But we don't want to be responsible if a child gets run over. I feel very strongly that is what is going to happen because you are running a sidewalk east and you are dead ending it several feet from an intersection. They only can go to the south which leads them across Hwy 45 in heavy traffic or over directly west down to a little store there. Box Avenue is not a concern to cross that nor the public property, but the big concern is do we want a sidewalk to nowhere that they are going to be crossing Hwy 45 in that heavy traffic. So, it's strictly timing. Bunch: In the interim, while we wait for this to be safe, where would they be crossing and where would they be going? Conklin: I guess Don Bunch is asking, do you have children at the elementary school • • • Subdivision Committee June 15, 2000 Page 32 currently who live on Box Avenue or walking down Mission Boulevard or that live over in these neighborhoods that are walking down Mission Boulevard to the west? Turrentine: No. There is currently a crosswalk on the access to Vandergriff School that crosses across to the Sequoyah addition there. There is a crosswalk there that is painted on the highway and we provide and pay for a supervisor moming and evening to actually walk out and put a flag up for those children. Now the highway has told us we can not paint a crosswalk where this sidewalk dead ends. They won't let us. So if we put a supervisor down there it's that supervisor's risk and the child's risk. Ward: This is more towards the Middle School? Turrentine: Yes sir, it is. Ward: The elementary school has been there. So we are looking at older children that are more unsupervised that would be taking off down the sidewalk. Turrentine: Yes. Hoover: They will be trying to go to the store. Ward: I don't think we have to worry about 2"d or 3`d graders but the middle school kids will do that. That is what they are trying to avoid. Turrentine: Strictly timing. Ward: Do we have a timing as to when this will happen with the Highway Department? Beavers: They issued notice to the contractor on June 5, 2000 and I think he probably has 18 months to maybe 24 months to complete the work. It goes further than I remember. This goes past Box Avenue. Ward: It comes close. Hoover: I have forgotten, is there green space between the curb and the sidewalk? Rutherford: It's a minimum 10 foot. But they have it farther. Hoover: Is the highway department matching that or are they putting it along the road? • • • Subdivision Committee June 15, 2000 Page 33 Beavers: Hoover: Beavers: Hoover: Theirs is going to go to the curb. Is there anyway to change that? That is so dangerous. We have already had an accident on College where the woman died there. There are not changes here. There may be some changes but as far as the city they have no power. What do you think it would take to get them to change this. Especially right there with the kids. If they are going to come down here to Hwy 265 then suddenly they will be walking along the curb. Rutherford: I just got the drawing this morning showing a 2 foot greenspace between the curb and sidewalk. It's matching what Hwy 265 has? They are showing a 2 foot berm and a 4 foot walk. A 4 foot walk? This is a 6 foot. That berm may end up being paved because they won't want to maintain it. Would that be something that the school district could pursue if you are worried about safety? I would comment that they have verbally talked to us about a 4 foot wall and that puts us more in our safety zone, you know, if a car veered off. A four foot wall the entire length of the sidewalk? Conklin: Beaver: Hoover: Beaver: Hoover: Turrentine: Beavers: Turrentine: They verbally talked about that at one point. Conklin: Hoover: Bunch: Hoover: It would be cheaper to buy more right-of-way and put it back. I don't have any problem with the way the sidewalk is, my main concern is that 1 think you ought to pursue the highway department to make it a safer route. I agree. And maybe they will respond to the schools. • • • Subdivision Committee June 15, 2000 Page 34 Ward: MOTION: Hoover: Bunch: Ward: Turrentine: Conklin: Branner: Conklin: Turrentine: Ward: Are we ready to make a motion? I make a motion that we approve AD 00-21. Second. I'll concur. And that is a great idea to try and pursue the highway department. We will do that. We have had two meetings with them. Sara brought up a good question, we will need that guaranteed with either money in escrow or letter of credit, 150 percent of the estimated amount. Can we base that amount on the credit we will get back from the contractor? We have that in our project now, we will have to take it out of our sidewalk project. You will come up with an estimate and Chuck is going to review it and approve it and then we need either cash put into an account here with the city or we need a letter of credit from the bank. Anything else? No. We are adjourned.