Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-10-12 - Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, October 12, 2000 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED LS 00-36.00: Page 2 LSD 00-31.00: Lot Split (Tipton, pp 475) Large Scale Development (Dixie Development, pp 176) ACTION TAKEN Approved Tabled Page 11 FP 00-4.00: Final Plat Approved (Covington Park Phase IV, pp 265) Page 50 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Lee Ward Laurel Hoffman Bob Estes STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Tim Conklin Sara Edwards Kim Rogers Kim Hesse Chuck Rutherford Ron Petrie Perry Franklin • • • Subdivision Committee October 12, 2000 Page 2 LS00-36.00: Lot Split (Tipton, pp 475) was submitted by D.W. Tipton for property located at 5839 Tipton. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 17.85 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 2 acres and 15.85 acres. Hoffman: Welcome to the meeting of the Subdivision Committee, October 12, 2000. This morning we have three items on our list. We have Lot Split 00-36.00, a Large Scale Development 00-31.00 and Final Plat for Covington Park, Phase IV. With that being the case, we will go ahead and get started with out lot split. Tim? Conklin: Yes. This is a lot split request to split a property into two tracts of 2 acres and 15.85 acres. The property is currently located on a gravel drive, a one lane gravel road. Staff is recommending the Subdivision Committee approve this lot split request at this level. Conditions of Approval include all new lot splits to have seventy-five of frontage on an approved street. The newly created lot will have 142 feet of frontage on a gravel road. In the past, staff has recommended street improvements to meet this requirement. Staff is recommending that the Washington County Planning Board determine street improvements for this lot split. Number two. This lot split shall be approved by the Washington County Planning Board prior to filing this lot split. Basically, we have not made a recommendation for them to improve this gravel road at this location and to leave that decision up to the Washington County Planning Board. That is all that we have with regard to this request. Hoffman: What about our septic tank comment. Usually we are making comments now about septic approval or some kind of indication that this property has to pass a perc test prior to filing a final plat. Conklin: Yes. This is over an acre and a half. Thank you for bringing that up. Typically, we do place that condition of approval on there that they do have that pert test and Arkansas Department of Health approval to us prior to transferring this property to someone else. Hoffman: Is the representative here for this property? Yes ma'am. If you can come up and take a seat and tell us your name. Calhoun: I'm Nancy Calhoun speaking for my dad, D.W. Tipton, it's his property. Hoffman: Typically, what we do is go through all the staff comments and then come back and if you have a presentation or want to talk about this then we will go into discussion on it and I will also take public comment. Let me get through the rest of the City staff and then we will come back and begin a discussion. Tim, other than the septic tank • Subdivision Committee October 12, 2000 Page 3 question, do you have any further comments about the road or improvements? Conklin: I guess dust for clarification for staff and the applicant, on tract B there is currently structures, a house, is that correct? Calhoun: On this corner. Conklin: On this corner on tract B? Calhoun: Yes. Conklin: They are currently on a septic system, is that correct? Calhoun: Correct. Conklin: So tract A is the tract that you are trying to split of and sell? • Calhoun: That's the piece that he has sold. Conklin: Which is undeveloped at this time, there is no structure on it? Calhoun: No. Conklin: We'll need that perc test and the Arkansas Department of Health approval prior to us stamping the deed. Calhoun: He has to do that or the buyer? Conklin: It's up to how you negotiate the sale of the property. • Calhoun: What I'm saying is, we have a closing on this for Monday because they said there wasn't going to be a problem on selling this but we have a closing pending that this is going to be approved here and go over there. Hoffman: That's just prior to the final plat approval right? Conklin: Yes. Calhoun: He didn't deed this acre and a half on this side right here. This is mine. I have a septic • • • Subdivision Committee October 12, 2000 Page 4 system on mine. He deeded that to me a year ago and you approved it. We didn't have to have a septic thing approved before you gave it to me. Conklin: We can approve it here with the condition that before we stamp the deed for filing, we will need to have that. The person you are selling it to is planning on building a house on it? Calhoun: Eventually. Yes. Hoffman: It's not something I think she needs to do before a closing but it's a condition. Conklin: Once you close then we would require it Calhoun. Before the water will turn it on, they have to have all that done anyway. Conklin: I understand. Hoffman: Let me jump in here. They changed the way they do lot splits. Usually you go to County first and you're here first, so that's why we are making that comment. Conklin: Our ordinances say that you have to have sewer or an individual disposal system. To prove that one is going to work, you have to test it. You need to talk to the title company. I think you probably close on it but before you file the deed on that, we need to have that done. Hoffman. It doesn't take very long. I don't think. Conklin: Washington County, have you gone to them and found out if this is going to go to the County Planning Board? Calhoun: No, because they said we had to come here first and go there. Conklin: I'm just concerned if you are closing Monday, you may not be able to get this approved by Monday from Washington County. I don't know what their turnaround time is on it. Calhoun: I just didn't figure that since was didn't have a problem on mine, it's right next to it. This has been in the family since 1935. He did give me an acre and a half off the end here. With his age, I think he is wanting to sell up some stuff so he has cut off two • • • Subdivision Committee October 12, 2000 Page 5 acres at the end of the farm. I have a septic system on mine. I didn't have a problem with mine. Conklin: We Just want to make sure you can get one on there. That will be a condition of approval. Calhoun: He let them know when he sold it. We put the utilities on it. It's got gas and water, they just have to pay to put a meter on it and before they can put a meter they will have to have a septic system. We've already put the utilities to the corner for them. Hoan: That was another question I had, do we have utilities in place? Conklin: Typically, we have been trying to make sure we have that before we stamp approved on the deed to get filed over at the County. That's what I've been doing. That's a question you can ask. Are they purchasing it through a bank? You going to go through a title company? Calhoun: Cash. Conklin: Okay. Before that deed is filed, before we stamp it, we need that permit from the Arkansas Department of Health on this piece of property. Calhoun: Before you stamp the City tract? Conklin: Yes. Before you can file a deed to transfer the ownership of the property, that test will have to be done. They will have to go out there and dig a hole. Calhoun: That means they can't settle Monday then, right? She told me as soon as we got through here today, for the approval, with the stamp on this and if I go to the County and they stamp it, bring it to her and then they can. So you are not going to stamp the approval today? Conklin: We'll approve the lot split with the condition that they provide us, before the actual deed is filed over at the County. Calhoun: Before the actual deed is filed. Conklin: Yes. • • • Subdivision Committee October 12, 2000 Page 6 Hoffman: You probably won't close before the paperwork is done anyway. As long as you have your approval and this is just a condition for your approval. Conklin: I have called the Washington County Health Department. I have called the Arkansas Department of Health in Little Rock, they have told me there is no other way to do this other than to dig the hole, put the water in the hole... Calhoun- They don't do that anymore. Conklin: ...test the rate that the water is going out and submit that to Washington County and have the permit issued from Little Rock. I have asked, is there any way to just take that perc test and say that it works or doesn't work? They said "No." Rick Johnson with the Washington County Department of Health said "No, the only way you can show that a septic system can be on here is to actually apply for the permit and have it tested and have them go out there and take a look at the soil." Calhoun: They don't dig the holes anymore and pour water in them anymore, they dig one three foot hole, that's what they did on mine. It's all new. Down here on my kids, they did that on this site. They dig one hole, they have this color chart and match the color of the dirt on the chart. They don't pour water in the holes anymore. Conklin: Well, I didn't hear that. Believe me I have done a lot of research because I've had a lot of discussion between land owners and this requirement with our ordinance states we are supposed to have and so far, the State of Arkansas and the local office here in Fayetteville have told me that there is no other way to verify that you can have a septic system on here without having it tested and have them approve. Hoffman: It may be a different way to test. Conklin: Yes. It may be a different way to test. Calhoun- Here they dug holes and when they did mine they said they don't do it that way anymore, we went to school and we can go by the soil color. Bunch: Where is this located, it's hard to tell from the vicinity map? Calhoun: It's off of Double Springs Road on Tipton Road, County Road 639, top of west 16. Bunch: Okay. • • • Subdivision Committee October 12, 2000 Page 7 Hoffman: Do we have anymore staff comments of any substance? Chuck? Chuck Rutherford - Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator Rutherford: It's outside city limits, sidewalks are not required. Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie. No comment. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Hoffman: Let's bring it back to the Subdivision Committee and the question I have reading through the Technical Plat Review minutes was that I wanted to make sure that everybody understood that there will need to be separate water service for both lots and that you clearly understood that and about the septic and utilities. You don't have to eventually put it in but there is no sewer line anywhere close by. Is there? Conklin: No. It's in the County. It requires City Council approval or annexation to do the sewer. I'm just trying to figure out how do you meet that ordinance requirement where it talks about if you don't have sewer you have an individual septic. Hoffman: What are you going to do about small lots, less than an acre? Conklin: They need to show that too. Before the County would approve these lot splits on three quarters of an acre subject to the septic system working. According to Rick Johnson of the Washington County Department of Health, he doesn't think that is a good idea because there is some areas where three acres won't work. The only way to prove that it will work is to actually do the analysis. MOTION: Estes: I would move that we approve LS 00-36.00 subject to the staff comments on the lot split. It will need to be approved by the Washington County Planning Board and the Washington County Planning Board will need to determine street improvements, if any, for this lot split. A conditional standard Condition of Approval will be the septic pert test prior to the deed filing as we discussed. Bunch: Second. • • • Subdivision Committee October 12, 2000 Page 8 Hoffman: I'll concur. Thank you very much and you are approved with that condition on the septic tank. As far as how quick it can get done, you need to call them. If you still have to go to the County I would really doubt that they would approve it. Calhoun: It's my understanding that with Lender's Title, I had to bring the approval from here and the approval from the County. If they have that in today, they will close. Hoffman: Is that going through a subdivision board at the County or just the County Planner? Conklin: I'm not sure. Calhoun: They just stamped it last time. Conklin: They just stamped it last time? Hoffman: I think we are going to use you as a test case and maybe call the County and find out how long it takes them because we should be able to tell people when they come here what to expect. Conklin: It's been a challenge reading those County regulations. Hoffman: You are approved. You are officially approved. Tim, if you can help me out here. Sara Edwards - Development Coordinator Edwards. We can go ahead and get you out an approval letter. You will have to give us a couple of hours after this meeting and you can take that to your closing company and that will probably work. We are just not willing to stamp this right now until you get that permit. Calhoun: I understand that but see these people, they may not, even though we are going to put the deed and everything in their name, they may not do anything on the property for three or four years. Conklin: But three or four years from now when they want to do something and they find out that they can't even get a septic system on here, I know you have one on your other lot but soils change. That's what they also told me in Little Rock and Washington County. In northwest Arkansas you can go a hundred feet and soils can be a certain type that can't support a septic system. Subdivision Committee October 12, 2000 Page 9 Tipton: Pardon me for butting in but it's my property. It's as level as that table is right there. It's six hundred feet wide. Hoffman: I just want to get on the record that was Mr. Tipton, the owner of the property. We will get you out an approval letter just as quickly as possible and you still really have the hurdle to go over with the County about the road. I'm sure their approval will be some kind of... Calhoun: Can I leave from here and go to the County or do I have to wait for the letter? Hoffman: You can go over there. Conklin: You can go over to the County. You may be over there before we get out of here to call them up or tell them or anything but you can go over there and talk to them. Hoffman: You have approval of this the Commission. Calhoun. They can go ahead and do the closing but the people can't file it until they have that part. Hoffman: That's correct. Estes: You got everything you came here for. Calhoun: They didn't throw this in on mine, so I wasn't expecting this. Estes: Let me say this, when you did your lot split the rules and regulations were a little different. Within the past year there was a change. That change was that lot splits, outside the city limits within the city planning area, those lot splits come to us first and then go to the County. When you did your lot split, that was not the case. Then this business about getting your perc test, we never even talked about that because we never saw those lot splits. Calhoun: We explained to the buyers that it would be up to their costs because we dropped the money down. Estes: So you got everything you came here for this morning. Now you need to go to the County and they are going to talk to you about the road. • • • Subdivision Committee October 12, 2000 Page 10 Calhoun: Well the Tipton brothers have taken care of that road for 35 years and that's what they told us last year. Hoffman: They are probably just as happy to keep it that way. Estes: You bet. Thank you Mr. Tipton, good to see you. Hoffman: Thank you. Subdivision Committee October 12, 2000 Page 11 LSD 00-31.00: Large Scale Development (Dixie Development, pp 176) was submitted by Joe Rogers of The Benham Group on behalf Dixie Development for property located at the southwest corner of Joyce Blvd. and Old Missouri Road. The property is zoned R-0, Residential Office and contains approximately 6.65 acres. The request is for five professional office buildings. Hoffman: We'll move on to our second item which is a Large Scale Development for Dixie Development, LSD 00-31.00. It is submitted by Joe Rogers of The Benham Group on behalf Dixie Development for property located at the southwest corner of Joyce Blvd. and Old Missouri Road. The property is zoned R-0, Residential Office and contains approximately 6.65 acres. The request is for five professional office buildings. Estes: Hoffman: I thought we were going to have legal counsel here at the Subdivision Committee. Would you please give us our summary? Sara Edwards - Development Coordinator Edwards: Yes. Basically, what they are doing is they do have four buildings proposed for this. All the surrounding zoning is A-1. They are proposing 255 parking spaces on 6.65 acres. Hoffman: Is it four or five buildings? It says five on our agenda. Edwards: I know. That was a typo and it's four. Correct? Rogers: Yes. Edwards: We are, at this time, recommending that this project be tabled because they are not meeting a section of our Commercial Design Standards which calls for fifteen feet of landscaping between the right-of-way and all parking lots. They are overlapping in at least three spaces, that I see. Hoffman: Can they point those out to us on the plat? Edwards: Yes. It's right here. I've Just drawn a fifteen foot line right here. Hoffman: Where there's a Jog here? Edwards- Yes. • Subdivision Committee October 12, 2000 Page 12 Hoffman: Edwards: Rogers: Hoffman: Edwards: • Hoffman: Conklin: Hoffman: Conklin: Hoffman: Edwards: Hofftnan: Edwards. Not fifteen. Okay. Where this second lot sticks out, this one, that may be easily fixed. The third one that dumpster. I'm Joe Rogers. This is David Gilbert. He is with our office as well. Why don't you have a seat and in order to keep things rolling smoothly, let me let staff make their presentation and then we will come back and discuss all these items. The next thing, we would like the Planning Commission to make a determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards. We are requesting a description of materials and colors to be used in this development be submitted prior to Planning Commission. Our 911 Coordinator did also have a comment, they have made business for two aisles, Business Parkway and Business Drive, he does want those names separately and he does not want Parkway used. These are private drives? These are private drives, also functioning as parking aisles in some locations. They are not public streets. Okay. Before we move on past the driveway and aisle business, in Technical Plat Review meeting minutes, I was reading that we had an issue with the number of driveways for ingress and egress for the bank. Has that been settled? No. That is one of our conditions. Is that this driveway over here that is shown as one-way? Yes. We'll come back to all this. Kim will also go over this but there are not any rare or landmark trees on this site. Currently the canopy is 3.8%, they are proposing to preserve 1.3% and replace 20.97% which will bring the total canopy on this site to 22.25% and Kim is in support of that proposal but she did have some comments on it. Curb and gutter lines need to be removed through the sidewalk at with the driveway approaches. As we were • • Subdivision Committee October 12, 2000 Page 13 stating, this second curb cut, we would like Planning Commission determination of that request. Staff is not recommending that they receive that due to, we try to limit the number of curb cuts on a principal arterial street. Secondly, if Planning Commission does decide to approve that curb cut, it will need a variance for the width. We do have a twelve foot maximum on a one-way aisle and they are proposing seventeen which is a five foot variance. Standard comment, all utility equipment including roof mounting must be screened. We would like utility easements dimensioned on this site plan. If there is one that does say varying widths if they will continue to vary, we do want a legal description of that. Planning Commission determination of off-site improvements to Old Missouri Road. At Plat Review we did request them to make a proposal of, a cost estimate of a thirty-six foot street with that will cost and for the City to do a cost share, we did not receive an estimate on that so at this time we were waiting to make a recommendation on that. Conklin: There's the estimate. Edwards: There's the estimate. Gilbert: We weren't really certain what you were asking for so we did three different scenarios. Edwards: They are requesting cuts within twenty-five feet of the public right-of-way and that also will require a variance. Hoffman: How deep are those cuts? Edwards: Ron, do you know? Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie: Not with me. Hoffman: We'll get to that. Anything else? Edwards: That's it. Hoffman: Okay. Chuck? • // Subdivision Committee October 12, 2000 Page 14 Chuck Rutherford - Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator Rutherford: I would just like to re -state that the curb line needs to be removed through the sidewalk and driveway approaches. Also, I will expect it to be that way when the construction plans come back. Many times we find that we get through this process and then the construction plans come back like we didn't go through this process. Gilbert: What's happened there is our guys took the gutter line off but forgot to take off one of the double lined curbs. We did attempt to comply with that but that's a drafting error. Rutherford: We don't want any lines showing through there because the guy in the field will assume that a gutter line and will construct it that way. Hoffman: Okay. Anything else? Rutherford: No. They met all the other requirements. Hoffman: The fifteen foot green space requirement, that's a separate item than the sidewalks? Edwards: Yes. That's part of the Commercial Design Standards. Conklin: That's a part of the Commercial Design Standards. Hoffinan: Okay. Ron, you want to address the cut and fill first? I don't know if you are ready. Conklin: Before Ron, I'm going to have to leave at 9:00 for another meeting. Hoffman: Lucky you. Conklin: Sara will take over and I just want to say that we always try to limit the number of curb cuts on our principal arterial streets and that's one of the main reasons we are not recommending the additional curb cut. Hoffman: I've asked the question before and I never can remember the answer, before you go let me just make sure, on one lot what is the spacing requirement for a driveway and are they meeting that? Conklin: Yes. They are meeting that. • Subdivision Committee October 12, 2000 Page 15 Hoffman: The distance from the intersection warrant that. Conklin: The Planning Commission has limited the number of curb cuts and has looked at trying to provide access management onto our major roads to rejoin access and cross access through developments. That is Joyce Boulevard. Gilbert: I hate to break protocol here but since Mr. Conklin is leaving, let me ask you this question Mr. Conklin, for a five and a half acre piece of property with this many dwellings on it, do you believe three curb cuts is excessive? Conklin: I believe that this development can function with two curb cuts. Gilbert: Okay. Thank you but that's not the question that I asked. Do you believe three curb cuts for a five and a half acre development is excessive? Conklin: I think as a policy of the City of Fayetteville, having two curb cuts on Joyce Boulevard when you can have one, that it would be excessive. Yes. Hoffman: Thanks Tim. Conklin: Thank you. Hoffman: Let me get you two people that are interacting a little bit to just give your names for the record please. Gilbert: I'm David Gilbert, I'm the engineering director. Rogers: I'm Joe Rogers, I'm an architect forthe developer. Hoffman: Thank you. Let me get back to Engineering. We are going to come back to these parking lot and driveway issues. Petrie: I'll read to you a requirement in the grading ordinance, section 169.06, it states: cuts adjacent to public rights-of-way shall be setback a minimum of twenty-five feet excluding driveways or access flows. Hoffman. Including or excluding? Petrie. Excluding. In this situation the way we requested that's what we wanted to do. We • • • Subdivision Committee October 12, 2000 Page 16 want to know why you are requesting it so we can give that to the Planning Commission. What they are proposing to do is put these detention ponds close to the road there. Here they are about six to eight feet deep. Hoffman: What is the construction of the retaining wall material? Petrie. There is no retaining wall. Hoffman: So it's just going to be grassy? Petrie: It's only a detention pond. Hoffman: Any landscaping features to it? Petrie: It will have landscaping along the highway. Hoffman: There in the middle of those ponds? They look like they are in the middle of them. Gilbert: They are on this corner. Hoffman: So the only areas considered for variances would be these two ponds directly adjacent to Joyce? Petrie: There is some areas also along Old Missouri Road. Those are the most severe in those areas. I don't necessarily have a problem with a waiver, I need to know why it's being requested and all that before I can do it. Hoffman: Right. Do you feel like because it's right next to the sidewalk they are going to have to put a guard rail up. Petrie: A handrail at least. Hoffman: Okay. Do we have an ordinance about that? Petrie: Yes. It's in the grading ordinance. Hoffman: Okay. My two concerns here are safety for the ponds adjacent to the sidewalks and aesthetics for having real deep pond adjacent to the road. • Subdivision Committee October 12, 2000 Page 17 Petrie: Hoffman: Petrie: Hoffman: Petrie: Hoffman: Petrie: Hoffman: Petrie: Hoffman: Petrie: Hoffman: Petrie: • Hoffman: That's the statement I made in Plat Review on this. That's something we'll have to look at. There is also traffic regulations. We'll have to look at these regulations and see what they say with regards to how far this is setback from the street. You mean to keep a car from driving into it? Yes. To make it safe for vehicles and pedestrians. What have we done in the past? I don't have a recommendation for you because it has not been officially requested. We haven't had too many requests come up because this is a relatively new grading ordinance that we are dealing with that was revised the last time we revised the hillside ordinance. The only one I can remember is we gave CMN an variance for road grading or driveways under the same section. It was if they could cut down to even out their lot but not to cut down for detention pond. They are proposing to place a detention pond in part of that area. It wasn't because there was no large scale of the area we gave them a grading waiver on their plat. Basically the cuts you see along Joyce Boulevard, they way they flattened that. It's from this exact requirement. Other than that have we given anybody else any waivers for detention ponds close to the road? No. This hasn't been an issue. I think typically the Planning Division likes to have that landscaped area not necessarily a detention pond in the front of the building. In your opinion, could the ponds be located somewhere else on this property or are they put here just because it slopes down to the street? I think if they were moved they would have to reconfigure it. Is there anything else on the grading aspect of it? • • • Subdivision Committee October 12, 2000 Page 18 Petrie: You did mention the sidewalk, that grade is shown going up that sidewalk. There is a requirement it has to be one foot offset sidewalk before the cut or fill slope begins. That's my only comments on grading. Do you want me to go over this? Hoffman: If you have had time to read it, we can come back to you on it or whatever. Petrie: I'll make a comment about it but yeah it will take me a while. I won't have a recommendation until the next meeting here or Planning Commission, whatever you decide to do. Estes: Madame Chair? Hoffman: Yes. Estes: I'm going to make a motion that we table this, so I don't want to put Ron in a spot where he's having to make commitments and draw conclusion just on the spur of the moment with data that was just recently presented to him. Hoffman: I have a motion that we table this, is there a second to that motion? Bunch: I'll second. Gilbert: We have not had a chance to address any of these comments. Hoffman: That's okay, I understand that I was getting ready to go on that myself. Gilbert: You have a motion to table before we have had a chance to address any of the comments. I understand it may be within your prerogative but it seems a little sudden. Estes: May I speak, madame Chair? Hoffman: Yes. Estes: The reason for my comment was was for the reasons stated, I certainly want to take this opportunity to go over it and have a discussion and receive comment but at the conclusion of this process I am going to make a motion to table. Hoffman: In terms of the rules of order, I have a motion and a second, I don't really know whether I have to concur to have that be tabled. My intent was to talk about all the • • • Subdivision Committee October 12, 2000 Page 19 issues on the problems and possible solutions and make my decision at that time. I haven't made it yet. I do know that now you have two of three of us that wants to table this and what I would suggest is that we carry on as though any other Subdivision discussion. Let's go over every single item that we can and try to work out as much as can. I will not send anything to the Planning Commission though that is in need of more committee work. I think we will know that after you have made your presentation. Rogers: Can I say one thing? The business about the adjacent street and the improvements is something that the City asked for. That is not normally part of what we are doing. To make that a condition of tabling the whole project... Hoffman: That's not... Rogers: Do you see what I'm saying? Estes: Madame Chair, may I say this? What I meant to say a moment ago and what I think I said, if I mis-spoke, I will re -state it is, is that I will make a motion to table. I was not making that motion. Let's go ahead and go through this process and I just did not want Ron to be put in a spot where he was drawing conclusions based on data that he had just been presented with in the last fifteen minutes and I did not want that to happen. What I think I said and if I didn't say it, what I meant to say was that "I will make a motion to table." Let's go ahead and go through the process. Gilbert: As another point of order is the gentleman withdrawing his motion because you did make a motion and it was seconded? Estes: I don't think I made a motion. I think I stated I will make a motion. Perhaps I was being too accommodating. Perhaps I should have kept my mouth shut but I just did not want Ron to be making commitments based on data that he had just recently been presented with before he has a chance to do his work. That's not fair to him Hoffman: Let me just interject at this time. It is good that we all make our feelings known and I appreciate that and Commissioner Bunch as well because we have seen many times that if this committee is not thorough in it's work and we send you to the Planning Commission, we may be doing you a disservice and we do not want to do that. We want to go ahead and get through all of the staff comments and opinions and go from there as a starting point to try to work towards a solution to these issues. It sounded to me like you are not going to be ready to go to Planning Commission but we'll hear everything and then we will have our motions. Two of the three of us and I'm leaning • • • Subdivision Committee October 12, 2000 Page 20 that way, I got to tell you. I'm thinking this is probably not ready for the full Commission but we do want to work out as much as we can and if we have to come back you come back. Bunch: Also, in all faimess to the applicant, we need to go over as much as possible so you have a direction regardless of what action we take. I'm in agreement that we need to hear all that we can and try to solve whatever we can to expedite the process. Hoffman: Ron, did you have anything else about any of the grading or any other issues? You can just wait on the cost share. Let me interject at this point, a cost share agreement is a normal and frequently occurring part of our ordinances and city codes and so forth We are not asking for anything unusual for a development of this size. Many of you would be talking about waiving things if we were talking about a smaller piece but this is a large building. Rogers: Can I ask you a question? The cost sharing issue is who is going to pay how much on the street because the City is asking for a wider street than normal in that location. Is how those funds are allocated part of this Committee? In a sense, it has nothing to do with the development as far as physically, only in who pays for what. Hoffman: This Committee does not, I believe, address the dollar amount but this street is shown to be what it is on the Master Street Plan and we are charged with following those guidelines so what we are attempting to do is make sure that each development that gets approved is in conformance with the city's Master Street Plan. That is probably why you are getting... Gilbert: I don't think we have a problem with any part of that concept you just explained. I think what Mr. Rogers is going to is, the question is, to whether the large scale could be, all other issues aside, whether the large scale would be tabled or denied because the cost sharing agreement hasn't been worked out yet? Petrie: I think there is a lot more other things Hoffman: There is other things. Gilbert: I understand that but we are trying to get down to this. I don't want to go back and fix everything else and come back and have this Committee say "Well the cost sharing agreement is not worked out so you are tabled again." I'd like to know what's required now so I can fix all of what's required and not waste your time redoing Subdivision Committee October 12, 2000 Page 21 something that's not ready again. Hoffman: In all fairness, let me say, you were just given this figure. He's going to have to have time to digest it I'm sure that you will be able to make telephone calls back and forth between now and the next meeting of whatever nature. Is that normally how you work with things like this? Petrie: Right. What we were trying to do is was I could have my comments at this meeting and get to you so we are ready before Planning Commission. Rogers: My question is, as far as I know, what the City is asking for in terms of the street development and so forth, the developer said "That's great." The only issue is not physical, it's monetary. Who pays for how much? That's what I was asking. Where is that determined? Hoffman: Mr. Petrie has a formula. Petrie: It's determined at Planning Commission. Rogers: That's why I'm asking, why does that need to be settled... Petrie: This Committee needs to make a recommendation to the Planning Commission. Rogers: Of the cost share? Petrie: Right. Gilbert. Of the amount? The actual dollar amount? Hoffman: That's based on his recommendation. Rogers. That's what I was trying to find out. Hoffman: I just want to give him enough time to recommend something. Rogers: That's fine. I just didn't know that the numbers being decided had to be decided by this Committee in order to take this to Planning Commission I didn't understand that. It's not a physical issue, it's monetary issue. Subdivision Committee October 12, 2000 Page 22 Hoffman: Petrie: Hoffman: Petrie: Hoffman: Petrie: Hoffman: Petrie: Estes: Petrie: Hoffman: Gilbert. Hoffman: Gilbert. Petrie: Estes: To give us a recommendation and to make sure that we have all of the P's and Q's on that issue and all the other issues before we otherwise we will have nine people talking about this. Won't that be fun? Let's give him a chance to take a look at those. Kim, can you give us our landscaping? I do have other comments. Go ahead. On the water and sewer, just a couple of comments. You've got a sewer line going underneath the detention pond, you need to look at that being routed around that pond. Is that over on Joyce? Yes. Can it go in the parking lot? Yes. Ron, is an alternative to have it steel encased if it has to go under the detention pond? In this situation, it's not just crossing right across it, it's going right through the middle of it. It should go around it, in this situation. We want to avoid it whenever we can. So you would have to bring it up and through there? We'll have to have another look at this because we can't move any farther back than this without getting easements from this property owner and that's just a whole other level of complications I would like to avoid. So you can make these bends in the sewer lines? Put another manhole in. It can be done. Right. On the off-site sewer on sheet seven, additional easements will be necessary. I'm sorry Ron, I didn't hear you. The papers were shuffling. Subdivision Committee October 12, 2000 Page 23 Petrie: This existing easement runs to the north, we have this sewer line very close to the edge of that easement. An additional easement will be needed ten feet from that sewer line. I'm just making sure you are aware of that. Gilbert: I thought we had addressed that in our comment letter back to you but I may have forgotten that. We do understand that. Petrie: I think you did but it's not showing on the plan. You changed it in a different location and the note didn't address that so I want to make sure it's done. Gilbert: Yes sir. Thank you. Hoffman. Does that tie into the earlier comment regarding the exact description of all utility easements? Has that been addressed in any way? Petrie: I think it's a little bit of a different issue on one plan. I can do the easements through the development, the widths of the proposed easements. Gilbert: Mr. Petrie is correct in that we do need to provide a legal description for that easement because it is an irregular shaped easement and we will provide a legal description for that. Hoffman: Okay. That's all settled with the easements? Gilbert. Yes. Petrie: I did have a comment at Plat Review that we would like all the trees that you are planting be ten feet from the water and sewer lines. Comments on the retaining ponds, ,lust a couple of things that are requirements. We do require concrete pilot channels on pond bottoms. Hoffman: Can you tell us what those are? Petrie. It's kind of a small concrete swale. Hoffman: Does it have that big thing that sticks up that's so ugly? Petrie: That's a outlet structure. This is just more or less... • • • Subdivision Committee October 12, 2000 Page 24 Gilbert: This looks like a sidewalk running through the middle of the pond but it's actually tapered where it's going to be Hoffman: Are we going to have any of those in these ponds? Petrie: I don't have any regulations on aesthetics on outlet structures. Hoffman: My question is do we have any outlet structures for these ponds? That's going to be an aesthetics issue if we are right up at the street with those things. Petrie: I don't believe they are like what you are talking about Hoffman: I have a good example for you. Petrie: I know exactly what you are talking about These are different. I think they are small pipes that are taking the water so you don't have that big structure out there in the middle of it. Am I correct? Gilbert. We will have some boxes. This is kind of where physics and aesthetics collide. We are looking at a site here that basically has a ridge in the middle which means the water naturally goes to the south and to the north The only practical way to detain water running in that pattern is to detain it at the south and north ends. That pretty well sets the location for the detention ponds. You are trying to hold water that's running in one direction and keep it for a little while and release it more slowly In one small parking lot you have to have that down near the low end. You just can't hold enough water up at the top to make that work. That's why the ponds are at the extreme ends on this particular piece of property. The second thing is that in order to control that flow out of there, you have to regulate it by some method which means you basically have to create a slot or hole or something that it will flow through and because Fayetteville's detention ordinance is very much like all the detention ordinances around here and in most places that I've done any work in that, what you want is you don't want any more than, the highest amount of water that runs off of the site during a rainstorm, you don't want that to be any more than it is right now for this being open land so you have to hold a fair amount of water and you have to release it very precisely. There is a limit of devices that will allow you release that water that precisely. We are talking about controlling this in six different storm events, from the storm you would expect every two, five, ten, twenty-five, fifty years and the storm you would expect every hundred years To meter the water to the same amount in all of those events, you have to have a very precise structure. It almost always has to be made out of concrete. Subdivision Committee October 12, 2000 Page 25 Hoffman: Gilbert: Hoffman: Petrie: Hoffman: Petrie: Hoffman: Petrie: Hoffman: Petrie: Do you have a detail on your plan? I don't know if we have it on this sheet. I have a full set back there will have details of it. Those structures almost always have to be made out of concrete and because you are releasing water from the time you get water in the very bottom of the pond until the time the pond fills up to it's maximum height, those structures have to be as tall as the pond is deep. I agree with you, they are not very attractive but by the time you regulate all these other things to keep this water flow down, which is very important and I fully support but by the time you do that you are going to wind up with something that is somewhat utilitarian. It's not going to be a decorative structure. Ron, can you fill us in a little bit on these things, is there any alternative to method of design than having a big old concrete model up in the middle of the pond? Is there something that can come out the side of it or look better. I'm sure there is. I've seen them. Have I designed them? No, I haven't. I think that's something that we need to take into consideration if we were to grant the variance for the proximity to the street. Comments from other Commissioners are welcome on this pond issue. I assume we are focusing on the pond issue. Have we gone through pretty much everything? Unless you want to briefly hit on the street. Let's go on that. The private street? Right. Old Missouri Road is classified as a collector street through here and it is a very narrow street that needs improvement. It is required to widen it to a local street standard at a minimum In discussing it with the Public Works Director, this is a project on our CIP scheduled for 2004. They are interested in making this a three lane street at this time. That's why we requested the cost and to work out the percentage of this. We've got the percentages projected for three years down the road or four years? It would be done when this is developed. It would have to come out of the another project and approved by the City Council. If City Council doesn't approve it, then more than likely we would have to define this. More than likely we would ask for an assessment and not have any improvements at this time. • • Subdivision Committee October 12, 2000 Page 26 Hoffman: Petrie: Hoffman: Bunch: Gilbert: Hoffman: Gilbert: Ho 11 Gilbert. Estes: Hoffman: Estes: The assessment is settled for five years or how long? It's five years but they have the ability to come back and ask. That needs to be released it's not automatically released. We will have to get your recommendation. That's what I was thinking was the street standards were going to, or we had something in mind to widen the street at this point. It is a high traffic intersection. I have a detention pond question. Is there a physical reason for having to locate this in the southeast corner of the lot? Looking at the grading plan or the topo that's been superposed on it, is there some reason that it could not be located in the southwest corner where it would not be quite as visible? Just flip-flop the parking lot and the detention pond. There are a couple of issues here, for one the berm on the east side of that pond and on the south side is going to be high enough on the order of three or four feet high with a grass slope and then landscaping at the bottom, it really won't be all that visible as you are driving down Old Missouri Road. Is this the berm you are referring to right here? That's actually more of a swale. This is the berm right here. This is the top of the berm right here. Okay. It mainly had to do with the placement of the buildings on the site, the configuration of parking and the proximity to those buildings and also it was more or less a toss-up as to whether it went on the southeast corner or the southwest corner. On the southeast corner we are closer to the public storm sewer system although, in this case, it's an open ditch. It's not very elaborate but it allows us to go ahead and discharge without having to build large piping through the whole site to get to it Madame Chair? Yes. With regard to the detention ponds, are these true detention ponds or are these landscape features? Let's talk about that for a little bit. • • • Subdivision Committee October 12, 2000 Page 27 Gilbert. These will be grassed dry -bottom ponds, they will not hold water. We have some reservations about building water holding ponds in some cases, mainly due to safety concerns. We've had some examples of that in Rogers in the last where those can be a difficulty. It would be nice if children all stay where we put them and we keep an eye on them for every minute but sometimes that doesn't happen so we tend to go with the dry bottom ponds. There is a less likelihood of breading mosquitos. Basically, it's going to look like a large piece of lawn with some slopes on it. Estes: We're going to be asked to grant a variance for the detention ponds. My thinking is that one solution to that may be a landscape features around the pond like we discussed, the berms, the landscaping. By landscape features I don't mean a pond that holds water but that's not very sensitive to the issues that you just discussed if it's going to hold water. Although we have no ordinances that require this, I'm committed to discuss the safety issues. That's a personal issue on my part. When I say landscape feature, what I'm talking about is the berms, landscaping and so on. It seems to be that that may be the solution because I understand that I don't have the training and expertise that you have but I have some understanding of what you talked about is that you are victim of the topo of the dirt that you are working on and it's prohibitively expensive to cut the top of that thing off and haul it away. Rogers: We've talked to Brent Vinson who's in our office who used to work for the City. Estes: We had to let him go. Rogers: I see. Well, we evidently picked him up. About how you can landscape these things and actually put some certain types of plantings in the feature not just on the berms but actually some things could be planted in the space and live. Hoffman: Let me interject at this point. We've heard from Engineering but we have yet to hear from Ms. Hesse so let's go ahead and get your comments on the project and then can we roll some of those into possible landscaping features on these detention ponds. I know we have tree canopy recommendations. Kim Hesse - Landscape Administrator Hesse: The site is the old farmstead. Estes: Do we have a landscape plan? • • • Subdivision Committee October 12, 2000 Page 28 Hesse: For the future and what we need on your constructions plans is any tree protection needs to be on the grading plan. It's my experience that contractors rip this plan off as soon as they get it. Really, they do. They will never know that there is tree protection fencing required out there. Gilbert: Can we put that on the erosion control plan? Hesse: Yes. That's really when we check anyway. Unfortunately, these are fairly Targe trees but they are very unhealthy. If I was to give my recommendation, those trees should be removed though I know in the public eye will go by and say we are removing all the canopy off of this site. I have a feeling the developer will be removing these trees over the next five to ten years as it falls on their driveway and buildings. Hoffman: What kind of trees are they? Hesse: They are elms. A lot of them have a lot of rot in them. I don't know that they have Dutch elms disease but they do have a lot of problems. The only decent trees on the site are the younger trees. These are ash Ash is a native tree. These are good healthy trees. These are not healthy. These are not healthy. For you guys to design around this, I mean, if you are in the process of having to change anything, I would be flexible here because they are just not that healthy of a tree. I don't think they are going to last very long. I think if we did construction, especially here and in the future, there is no way that tree is saved. There is no way this tree is saved, actually because the water line comes right here. It's cross reference your utility and grading. A lot of these wouldn't be preserved anyway. I really wouldn't want them to change their plan for preservation of these trees. It just doesn't make sense. Hoffman: They are showing them to be preserved now but your recommendation might be that this would be a way to... Hesse: If that gives them more room to work. Hoffman: ...work around it. The ponds are over here so we don't have any of the pond issues for these trees but if they have parking lot adjustments because we are too close, let me just go on record on that, I would say I would insist on the parking lot being withdrawn back from the street fifteen foot minimum requirement. You have to have landscaping along the roadway anyway. Gilbert: Just, again for the record, let me state, we were under the understanding and I'll have to Subdivision Committee October 12, 2000 Page 29 verify where we got this understanding, it is obviously in error, we were under the understanding that it was ten feet. We were not trying to get by any of your stuff. I've known Ms. Hesse for a number of years, I've found her to be very reasonable, very professional and very good at what she does and watching the whole fiasco... Hoffman: We don't say that word anymore. I'm sorry. Gilbert. I'm trying very hard not to say the word but watching that, I sympathize with the City and with Ms Hesse particularly because she is good at what she does and she took a lot of heat for that over something she didn't deserve. The last thing I want to do is come in here and try to look like we are trying to get by with something. I'm sure that when you say fifteen feet and we come in with ten, it probably looks like we are trying to get away with something. I'm sorry, that was a mistake on our part and we will correct that. That's not a problem. We really thought we were meeting the intent and I'm going to go find out who found ten feet and he and I are going to have a serious discussion this afternoon. Hesse: It's probably someone else. Gilbert. It's probably somebody in our office. Not at the City. Hoffman: So what do you want to do? Do you want to have them replace the trees or do you want to try this? Hesse: I can try it. Gilbert: This is a ticklish matter because if the trees are unhealthy, they probably do need to come down but at the same time, we understand the pressure that puts the City under and particularly the pressure that puts Ms. Hesse under and again we don't want to cause anybody to call her with angry phone calls and all of the controversy that still surrounds the City now because of the last project. We would rather avoid that so we will work with you. If you feel comfortable with us taking those trees out and they are unhealthy, then I agree with you. By all means they should come out. We just don't want to put you in that position. If you want to put you in that position, that's okay with us. Hesse: These would have to come out as you widen the road obviously. These trees are about ready to fall into the road actually. If we went through, hopefully in the spring we'll start pruning, these will probably be removed quite honestly because they are in the • • • Subdivision Committee October 12, 2000 Page 30 right-of-way. Bunch: A little different angle on the same vein here, when we put new trees in, replacement trees and that sort of thing, there are certain requirements for maintaining those, is there anything that says what type of replacement there has to be if the trees that were preserved die and have to be removed? In other words, we are playing the numbers game with preserved canopy and replacement canopy and one of my concerns is, is the total canopy that we wind up with. Having some cut down and five, ten, fifteen or twenty years, have a better product. Hoffman: And replace them with some native species. Gilbert: A very positive way to approach this is to say, if you hold to the letter of the ordinance and you preserve those very sick trees, then you are going to have less canopy in five years than if we go ahead and take those out now and put in something that will, in five years, be still viable. Hesse: It doesn't reflect what we are trying to do in tree preservation. People drop by and go "Why are we protecting those?" and then some people drive by and say "Why are we cutting those down?" Gilbert: It hasn't had leaves on it five years. Hoffman: In my mind, the way you presented it, I think the Commission and the staff can certainly easily explain if they are as diseased as you say and I'll drive by and look at them. I would go with your recommendation and just put in some other trees. Estes: Ms. Chair? Hoffman: Yes. Estes: We need to be pragmatic about this. If those are diseased trees and they are not going to be there two or three years from now, for reasons stated, we need to allow this developer to remove them. Hesse: We could put them on life support basically, they could prune them. You would probably have to prune out half the canopy which is probably dead or dying and then over the next five years you would be slowly be pruning more and more out of it. It might last ten years but they wouldn't be very attractive • • • Subdivision Committee October 12, 2000 Page 31 Estes: Gilbert: Hesse: Hoffman: Gilbert: Hoffman: Hesse: Gilbert: Hoffman: Gilbert: Hesse: Gilbert: Rogers: They would not be very attractive. Let me speak to the replacement canopy if I may. I would like to see native species. As I look at the plant list, I see what I call decorative trees, let's get rid of those. Let's use native species. All right. Certainly, along your perimeter where you are allowed room for larger trees, I support we could put in oaks or hackberry even green ash These are actually nice trees. They are nine inch all around in definition but that's the type of tree that actually be all right. The seed, the regular ash are full of seeds. I don't know how they are going to be on the development. If you are having to do some adjustments there is no reason to try to save those. We can come in with some new oaks, two inch caliper and five years down the road they would be great. What I would like you all to do is to work with Ms. Hesse about those replacement trees and the type and native species. I too would prefer to see those as opposed to all the marbles that we get. I want to move away from that. I would like to continue that trend. I think we have enough Bradford pears already. Is that what they are Bradford or Bartlett? Bartlett is fruit bearing. If we had a Bradford disease like the Elm disease it would be bare. Okay. Is there any other landscaping issue that we need to discuss? Can we talk about mitigation for the ponds. Before we move to that can I just ask a question? You are thinking these trees can probably be removed? I think they will have to be if we are widening that. Without a doubt. Yes. What about these? Leave these? Those are right on that ditch. • • Subdivision Committee October 12, 2000 Page 32 Hesse: They will probably have to be removed with the road. Rogers: The ditch is going away so we can improve the road. Bunch: Will the change in tree preservation give you some more latitude in the design layout? Rogers: Actually, it's not so much the trees because they are fairly central and that helped determine where the drive might be but the topo is what's driving the building placement. It's pretty severe coming this way we have entry at one level here and entry at another level here just because there is so much. We actually looked at the possibility of cutting the top off of this hump. It would be moving a mountain. It was simply not feasible. We've sited the buildings and the parking lot and some small retaining walls so that we get a layered effect and that's driven it much more than the trees. Hesse: If you are trying to hide those ponds, I think he's right, you wouldn't really see them too much from the road but you could always use some low growing shrubs which would actually be more of a barrier at eye level along with these trees. I guess we can plant at a slope of the detention pond and in the bottom of the detention pond. You are actually showing some over here in the bottom. Petrie: I really don't have a problem with that. Bunch: Willow oaks or river birch? Hesse. He's got willow oaks. There's actually a weeping willow here which looks like it holds water. I mean there is a retaining wall along here so that's why that weeping willow will probably be fine and will hold a little bit of moisture Any willow will be fine. Bunch: Besides that street crews love them because they have small leaves that don't clog the sewers. Gilbert: Some of the particular trees that are decorative types or would you rather we use something else? Estes: Kim is going to have to help us out on this but some of them I've checked off are right there. These are not a native to this area but you will want to use them around the pond. You find those in south Arkansas. Then when you get into this rough ground cover I think that you probably have to go to a decorative item. • • • Subdivision Committee October 12, 2000 Page 33 Gilbert: How would you feel, dogwoods are a fairly native tree around here. Estes: Yes but you have to be careful with where you put those. Hesse: Is Brent doing this? Estes: Kim will have to check me off on this but when I saw that one, that one, and that one fruit trees that all produce trees. Hesse: They are ornamental. Estes: Yes. They would be what I call decorative. Then when I saw these, these are not native to northwest Arkansas. The habitat that they would be suitable for will be in and around those detention ponds. Hesse: I can prepare a memo for the Planning Commission. Estes: Hesse: As we look at the native species, let's look at the caliper of the trunk too because I see some of these are about the size of this pencil I have. I'm being facetious but they are pretty small. They are to be two inch so these should all be two inch caliper. Anything that's, as a requirement to the ordinance, which would be the parking lot trees and the trees along here. Gilbert: Those are required to be two inch? We'll fix that too. Hesse: It is actually a requirement. I'll have to look at these, these are required to be medium size trees. I can get with Brent. As far as the cost, it will be a little bit more but per ordinance it's required. Gilbert: You have to get sick trees out of this site. Something that is not going to live for more than Just a few years is not doing anybody any favors. Bunch: Then replace them with a larger caliper tree? I think that would be a wise decision. Hesse: It Just doesn't make sense and it gives a bad name to tree preservation. Redesigning sites around trees that are in there. Subdivision Committee October 12, 2000 Page 34 Hoffman: I agree. I want to move this along. Is there anything else we need to talk about with the trees? Bunch: Well a combination of landscaping and open space, I didn't see any numbers. Just generally looking at this, I'm having trouble figuring out the parking lot landscaping versus open space. Are detention ponds being used as open space? I don't see much other than, maybe I'm not looking at it properly. I don't see much open area other than parking lots Gilbert. The detention ponds typically do count as open space. There is an area right around here where we left a fair amount of open space and even if these trees come out, in all likelihood we will leave that like it is. We'll obviously put some landscaping back in there to make up for the trees that are being removed, the sick trees that are being removed but that would be an open space area and the detention pond. Those are the primary areas There is a little bit in here but it's really more ornamental than it is functional as open space. Bunch: Do you have any percentage figures of your area? Gilbert: I do not. No sir Edwards. Go ahead and add a site coverage note. Estes: You are going to pull the parking lot further in fifteen feet so that will... PUBLIC COMMENT* Hoffman: They have to meet the minimum site coverage before the final plan comes back. I would say that landscaping and a couple of other issues are going to need taken into account on your request for a variance for these detention ponds. If what you can work out with Kim would be most appreciated. I forgot to take public comment on our lot split. I don't think there was any but at this time I'm going to interrupt and say do we have anybody here that wishes to address us on this development from the public? Hunnicutt: I'm Don Hunnicutt, I represent Butterfield Trail so I'm just an interested neighbor. No comments about this. 1/ Subdivision Committee October 12, 2000 Page 35 COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Hoffman: Thank you. I'll bring it back now and I think we've gone through all the staff comments, we have to address the driveways, the variance, I think they've agreed to all the easement and re-routing of the utility lines and so forth. We need to address, when we can, the cost share agreement so we still have quite a few things to go through. I would like to say that in my experience, I'm addressing the driveways, in my experience on the Planning Commission, it is indeed true that we have limited banks to, in many cases we have even granted variances to give them more access on lesser traveled roads. I'm going to use the example of the bank on Wedington that has our new development that's going on, I can't remember the name of the development but it's on Wedington, on the other side of the bypass. Bunch: Over by Salem Road. Hoffman: We didn't even permit them an access which is, I would like on Joyce to Wedington. I don't think they even have an access to Joyce. • Edwards: Are you talking about Arkansas National that is being built now? Hoffman: Yes. They got one that's going back to an access easement in the back and then they've got one out the side street. I'm saying that it is definitely a question in my mind, if we allow a driveway this close to the west property line that we are going to load up Joyce Boulevard and create another College Avenue. Although I am sensitive to the needs in the configuration of cuing spaces I think that you have enough room on your site that you can somehow route traffic without having to have these two driveways. I would look at that and we have a very heavily traveled road and looking at our decisions in the past, I have to use those as a barometer for what we should do in the future. I just see Joyce as becoming a very heavily built-up street and I have to take into consideration how many people or how many driveways are going to be and how many people are going to be trying to turn right and left and get through without a stoplight. We won't have a stoplight here at all. We'll have one, of course, eventually here. Is there one there now? Estes: Yes. There is one at Old Missouri. Hoffman: Do you want to talk about that? Estes: Madame Chair? • • • Subdivision Committee October 12, 2000 Page 36 Hoffman: Estes: Hoffman: Estes: Hoffman: Estes: Hoffman: Edwards: Hoffman: Gilbert: Hoffman: Yes. I was Just discussing with the applicant that this is from center point of that east most driveway to the center point of Old Missouri and what I was thinking about was that signal control device in those turn lanes. I don't know where that tum lane begins on Joyce. It appears to be in right here. The issue that is going through my mind at this time is, I don't, for the reasons stated by you madam Chair, I just can't go with two curb cuts on Joyce. I'm even thinking about whether I'll go with one curb cut on Joyce and where it should be. That's my thought process at this time. People coming out and presuming we leave that curb cut that many feet east on that curb cut where it is, folks turning right... Trying to get into that left turn lane and cutting into traffic? Yes. Those turning left of that are going to be okay because if that's where that turning lane does begin then they are just going to have one lane of traffic Two. Yes. They are going to have two lanes of traffic to cut across there. My inclination is to say that the bank would be best served by a driveway where it's shown close to that property line and that circulation can then be through the site and out here at which point they would have the opportunity to tum either right or left and turning left would be mitigated somewhat by this traffic light. That's my initial impression. Has Perry, I know that there was some discussion with Perry Franklin in Technical Plat Review, has he issued a statement about this or anything? No. We had the other McDonald's that he looked at and he said "Well if that was bent driveway it was a dangerous situation." We didn't vote in that meeting but I think that driveway was eliminated. Why don't we talk to him before the next meeting that this comes to and see if we can get a recommendation from our Traffic Superintendent? I wish Mr. Conklin were here and I'm sorry that I had to press him a little bit on the question because my intention was not to press him. I understand. • • Subdivision Committee October 12, 2000 Page 37 Gilbert: Hoffman: Gilbert: Hoffman: Rogers: Hoffman: Rogers: Hoffman: Rogers: • Estes: But having three minutes before he had to be in his other meeting, time was a constraint. It looks like he got called out. But for a development of this size, with all due respect to Mr. Conklin and his expertise and his opinion, I disagree with him, I don't think that three curb cuts to a development this size is excessive. I think it's fairly minimal. The placement of the cuts may not be optimal but to say that two curb cuts off of a major thoroughfare into a five and a half acre office park is excessive is a statement that I'm going to have to disagree with. The issue you brought up regarding passing traffic through the driveway near the property line and Joyce Boulevard, certainly works well from an external viewpoint but from an internal circulation viewpoint it's very difficult to make that work because you are bringing people off of Joyce, immediately putting them through a number of low speed difficult turns to try to get them into the site and it would be very difficult to make that work. You can't run them all through the drive-through. Have you looked at putting two curb cuts on, eliminating one on Joyce and putting two on, it seems more natural to me to put them on the longer frontage? Two things about that, one is the placement of this has to do not only with trees but also that this is where the wise is. This is where you can see both directions. That's where we determined where that went. This one obviously is to get you in the center of the property so you can feed both sides. This is only there because the bank insists on it. The bank simply said, "We won't go here if we have to go through our parking lots to get to our drive-through". Have they looked at flipping the bank? We have tried that. I think that was actually done. We had a bank redesigned on Wedington, it's not that I'm trying to be... I understand and I went through that with their architect. They have their own architect for this building and between their architect and the bank people, they said "This is how we need it on this site." and we have to have this one-way entry. That's why it's still there. Who is that bank? • • Subdivision Committee October 12, 2000 Page 38 Rogers: It's going to be Hometown Financial. It's out of First State Bank and Loan, I believe is what it's called. Wittenberg out of Little Rock is the architect on it. Estes: Madame Chair? Hoffman: Yes. Estes: I certainly want to hear from Perry Franklin on this issue. Hoffman: Right. Estes: I want to hear from Mr. Petrie on the cost sharing. Rogers: Does the fact that this is a narrow one-way entrance make any difference at all? Estes: Yes. It makes a difference but it's not determining my thinking. I will tell you Joe, I know that this is an exaggerated example but, at the intersection of Gregg and Township, when you go in there to get subway sandwich and you try to get and you go in there to Arsaga's to get a cup of coffee and try to get out, it's horrible. Those are two curb cuts next to an intersection, next to a traffic control device. I don't know how in the world that ever happened. I was not on this Commission when it happened. Rogers: I don't either. Hoffman: Nor was I. I haven't been on that long. Estes: That's what I want to avoid. Rogers: I understand. Gilbert: This is significantly farther back than those you spoke of. Those are awfully close to the intersection. I know what you are talking about there. That is very cumbersome and very awkward. This is back a significant ways. 260 feet would be more than ten car lengths. It would be more like twelve or fourteen car lengths back which would give us some effort. This one though, this is the reason we went with the entrance only. Typically, this is the least invasive. You are not going to have anybody trying to come out here. • Hoffman: Oh yeah you will. • • • Subdivision Committee October 12, 2000 Page 39 Gilbert: Estes: Hoffman: Rogers: Bunch: Gilbert: Hoffman: Gilbert. Rogers. Gilbert: Hoffman: Bunch: Hoffman: Your correct. You shouldn't have anybody trying to come out here. If you do, you can write them a ticket. Really just to try to do the entrance only, we've tried to open this up for the right turns, to keep them moving through this and get them in, not stack them up, not back them up. Again, with the spacing in here, one of the concerns that was mentioned by some of them was that, I'm sorry I forgot who it was, cars backing up into Joyce Boulevard, you would have to have a whole lot of business going on in this bank to fill up all of this stacking room. If you could do a cuing model to show that that won't happen. Yes. People won't, I don't think, let themselves hang out in the street, they will go on and park and go in. There is enough stacking for like twenty cars easily. Joe mentioned the driveway being on the high -point for visibility on Old Missouri, what about having a one-way entrance ramps like one closer to Joyce. The grading in here really doesn't lend itself to that. Let's go back to the grading plan. You've got a two to one slope here. By the way, back to the detention pond for a moment, these slopes are two to one side slopes which means for every foot, they drop, they go out two feet first. They're not real steep. Backwards from roof's edge This is not something you want to drive down. If you wound up running off onto it, you are very likely to stay on the wheels and everything would be fine but to turn and try to go down a two to one slope is a fifty percent slope. That's worse than driving up North Street over the mountain. I kind of think instead of trying to redesign the plan, I would like to hear from our expert on it and then just see if it is indeed safe or not and go from there. I concur. I would ask him, as quickly as possible, to assess it and get back to staff and then let • • • Subdivision Committee October 12, 2000 Page 40 you guys know We will know by our next meeting. I would like to now move off the driveway issue, unless anybody else has anything to say about it. I don't think it's something we are going to be able to determine right now. The last thing that I think we have not discussed is the Commercial Design Standards for the buildings themselves. If you want to just go through it. Sara, do you have anything to say first about that? Edwards: We've seemed to neglected at Plat Review to have them go over the materials so we are very interested in having them do that. Hoffman: Okay. Would you just give us an overview? Rogers. Sure. They are all similar materials. Hoffman: Are you building another Emerald City out here? Rogers: No. As a matter of fact, the exact pallet the owner has not determined the terms of exact colors. The colors were put on this when there was one building on the site a while back. How do I put this tactfully? Since then, the other architect is supposed to be presenting the color pallet to the owner. Hoffman: And they'll have to be unified? Rogers. Exactly. We only had what we had originally sketched. Since we didn't get information from them, we dust used the same pallet we had used in terms of colors. We've looked at their drawings and our drawings in relation to the materials and they have come to an agreement on that. What you are looking at when you look at this, the dark is brick which is clown low and on certain vertical surfaces. Hoffman: So brownish taupe brick? Rogers: As we've got it, yes. They want to stay relatively neutral with their colors. Not anything bright and overpowering. Hoffman: The purple trees... Rogers. That's Brent again, I'm sorry. Hoffman: We decided to wait on the driveways and wait to hear from Perry. • • • Subdivision Committee October 12, 2000 Page 41 Rogers: The lighter tan you see with the grit pattem on it, is the dry vit type material, EFIS system. The roof would be a metal roof, probably more of a gray or a brownish gray as opposed to the green. Hoffman: Okay. Rogers: Those are the tree basic materials on the property. Hoffman: Can you show us the elevations as we go around the buildings? Rogers. Yes. Hoffman: This north elevation is... Rogers: This is what we call the "big boy" because it's a one story here and a two story here. Hoffman: Okay. This would be similar? Rogers: Yes. That's the north elevation here, you can see the whole first floor and this central portion here, it's all brick, the second floor being recessed slightly being the dry vit type material. Hoffman: Do you have the Old Missouri Street elevations') Rogers. This is the Old Missouri Street elevation. You can see entry on this level, on the south side. The ground level. Hoffman: What are those tall areas underneath what looks like a porch on the second floor? It looks like it has a balcony of some sort. What's underneath that? Rogers: There is actually an open space under part of it. This is actually a stairwell from the second floor. This is number four in the booklet. This is the east elevation. Hoffman: My questions then are really going to concern the backs of the buildings because we also have to consider what people see as they drive down the street. Sara, can you help us with this? First of all, we will need a description of the bank and I guess you don't have that with you. Rogers: The bank is in here. • • • Subdivision Committee October 12, 2000 Page 42 Hoffman: Secondly, because I believe, if this on a ridge, we are going to be able to see it as we come down Joyce and as we come down here. We are going to need to see what the backs of the buildings are like. Rogers: They are all in here. All the elevations are in here. This is the north elevation of the bank. This is the east elevation. Estes: Excuse me. Item number three is the bank9 Rogers: Yes. Estes: I'm with you. Rogers: This is the north side you see with the clock tower accent. This is the east side that's right along the center drive. This is the west side with the drive that comes towards you so you are coming out this way. This is what amounts to the back side. Hoffman: To me that's acceptable. We don't have any unarticulated long walls on that building. I'm Just probably one of the most concemed about it at this point. Bunch: Back on number three or two? Rogers: Two. This is the north elevation this way. The tenant who is looking at using this space very much wanted to be facing north and he wanted his visibility off of Joyce. This is low enough and with the site looking like it is, this will be a very visible site. This mass back here is actually this two story part behind. This is the east side, this is the side you would see driving in this drive. Here is the end of this building... Hoffman: He's got a little drive through canopy. Rogers: On this side. This is the main entry here for the big two-story space here. This is actually a stair tower back here. This is a stair tower between the spaces so you begin to get some rhythm to them. Again, the same pallet and so forth. They look almost like two buildings here and here but they are really not. They are tied together at the one- story level. This is the south view so you see the two-story space here and this sticking out way down here is actually the end of this building. This right here is the covered canopy there. This stair tower is this one right back here. Then the final elevation is the west elevation on this side. Subdivision Committee October 12, 2000 Page 43 Hoffman: Rogers: Thank you. I've got to say thank you. This is the same family here and then this becomes the end of this building across here. You can see his canopy from here and you can still see the stair towers and so forth to articulate the side. Hoffman: I'm completely convinced that we meet Commercial Design Standards with regard to the building. I think the only thing we need for the Planning Commission meeting, at that time, is a material board. Rogers: Okay. Edwards: Showing the colors. Bunch: We need dimensions on this. The square feet is not saying how high. Edwards: We require everybody to nail down those colors and I don't think it would be fair to let you guys just say "Well, we don't know yet." Rogers: I understand and I would have had them earlier if I had gotten the determination but I haven't yet. I'll make sure that happens. Bunch: Will you go over all the dimensions on this? Rogers: Does that not have dimensions on any of it? Bunch: Unless you scale it off Rogers: I'm sorry. That was specifically... Bunch: Signs are a big issue. Hoffman: You need the sign dimensions. Is staff in agreement with the size and location stated? Edwards: Yes. Hoffman: Okay. Let's move on. Does anybody have anything else to talk about before we go back to the variance on the detention ponds? Is that all right? • Subdivision Committee October 12, 2000 Page 44 Bunch: Hoffman: Bunch: Hoffman: Bunch: • Gilbert: • Hoffman: Gilbert: Hoffman: Rogers: Hoffinan: Estes: Hoffman: Which variance? The detention pond variance? Yes. We are not talking about the driveways anymore. On the detention ponds, in order to consider a variance, my concerns are safety first, with the guard rails and stuff. Let's know what we are dealing with and what kind we are going to have and let's have pictures of them. Aesthetics second, I think you all have discussed some landscaping and stuff like that, I feel like I could support it if we had those items. My deep concern are those really ugly outlet things. I would like you to work together to see if there is anything you could do to mitigate the size or appearance, even by paint. Is it possible to paint them green or anything? You are asking architects and engineers to work together. I think they are just awful. I think they just look terrible. An architectural design and an engineering structure. These are backed into the slopes so they won't be monoliths out in the middle, they are going to be monoliths sticking out of the slope. That's better but with green landscaping around them. Can you put something on the slope above it? This one is stuck so far back in the slope you won't see it. This one is the one, it's not entirely buried in the slope and then I think this one here may be sticking out. I'm totally serious. Can you put green in the concrete mix where it won't ever have to be painted? Let's start making that a rule. This is unusual but I understand where you are going. If we are going to have this nice pretty development and the pond so close to the road, I just don't want to look at those. Anybody else have anything? I just want to know why it bothers you so much. I guess I'm just picky. As a Planning Commissioner I get to be picky about a couple of things. Subdivision Committee October 12, 2000 Page 45 Gilbert: I can imagine she's thinking of those thirty-five foot concrete towers out in middle of those roads. These are really only about five or six feet tall. Bunch: More like bunkers. Hoffman: Do have any objection with the coloration of them? Rogers: No ma'am. I sure don't. Bunch: These are more like bunkers. Estes: So, what we have this down to, Madame Chair, is the curb cuts and the cost sharing, is that right? Hoffman: Yes. Edwards: I would like to say on the waiver for the detention ponds and if you decide to go with the driveway and the width of that, I do want them to request it in writing a letter stating why on both of those. Petrie: On the cost shares, just looking at those. The ordinance a cost share is based on rational nexus approach. Give me a recommendation. You have the cost but what's your recommendation? Gilbert. Is the City leaving it to us to tell you what we think our client should pay? Petrie: Based on a rational nexus, yes. Estes: Yes. That's the threshold issue. Gilbert: You may very well have an ordinance to that effect and if you do we will comply but I'm really not comfortable with us telling you what we ought to pay for building a project. Estes: Well we'll tell you if you are right or not. Hoffman: Yes. • Gilbert: One reason, it seems like it might be quicker for you to tell us what you think we ought Subdivision Committee October 12, 2000 Page 46 to pay. What we provided to Mr. Petrie, I'm sorry you didn't get a chance to look at it, was the cost to do a fourteen foot widening, the cost with an eighteen foot widening and then the cost of a thirty-six curb to curb full street. Petrie: If you leave it to me, I'm going to recommend that the developer pay to widen it fourteen feet. If you're happy with that, that's fine. Gilbert: To be honest with you, that is what I would have expected to see. Hoffman: Not fifteen? Petrie: Fourteen. Rogers: That's the norm. That would be the normal situation if we were widening it to a normal street. Petrie: I recommend you do the improvement. Hoffman: So either they will pay or they will put the money up. Rogers: I guess my question is and I don't understand exactly where he's going because I'm not an engineer, if the norm is that he would pay for fourteen feet of street widening and you want to go to thirty-six, why would we suggest anything but fourteen? Petrie: Rogers: Petrie: Because it doesn't say that in our ordinance. It says rational nexus. So we could say, "We think our guy should only pay for eight feet." I'm telling you what the ordinance states. You leave it up to me, I'm going to say fourteen feet. Rogers: If you said less than fourteen wouldn't the City normally just reject it? Petrie: Not necessarily, no. If you have the information to back it up. Estes: The Walgreen store at the intersection of College and Township for example. Hoffman: Because that's a heavily traveled intersection already. So you have to decide what percentage are you going to be adding to that, I guess is what we are talking about. Subdivision Committee October 12, 2000 Page 47 Gilbert: So you are basically giving us a method to figure a lower figure? Petrie: It may be higher. Estes: It can be higher. In the Walgreen episode, I thought it should have been higher. I missed the agenda session and it got put on consent agenda and I didn't feel like it was appropriate for me to pull it from the consent agenda so I just voted "no" on the consent agenda. Just so you know my thought on that. Hoffman: I did not understand it fully at that point. I was trying to kind of go with the flow because I liked the Walgreen's project and had it been more carefully thought out it would have been something the Commission would have said "no" if we had all thought about it more. Rogers: There is rationale for why you would divide one way or the other? Hoffman: It's based on your traffic counts. Rogers: At the same time, it's a negotiating tool evidently. Estes: It often becomes a item that is negotiated. I wouldn't say it's a negotiating gamble but I would say it is often an item that it negotiated. It was certainly negotiated in the Walgreen's project in my opinion. Hoffman: Yes. Gilbert. To help me understand this, you are saying if we do this calculation by the rational nexus method and we come up with a number less than the $62,000 which is the number for the fourteen feet, the City would consider that or the City is going to look at it and say "Well, thanks for doing this three hours worth of calculations but we still want the $62,000." or what? Petrie: The ordinance says rational nexus. Gilbert. Okay. I'll figure out how to do that then. Hoffman: I think you will have time to discuss that before the next meeting. I will entertain motions at this time. • • • Subdivision Committee October 12, 2000 Page 48 Estes: Madam Chair? Hoffman: Yes. Estes: I would move that we table LSD 00-31.00. The reason for my motion is that, as I see it, there are several issues yet to be resolved. The two that are the most concern to me are the curb cut issue and the cost sharing issue. Please understand that I am not limited to those two issues because we have a detention pond, we have Commercial Design Standards and we have other issues to discuss. We have the setbacks on the parking lots as it relates to the Commercial Design Standards but my two primary concerns, at this point in time, are the curb cuts and the cost share. Bunch: I'll second. Ho man: I'm going to concur. I hate to delay you any further but I do feel like the driveway issue is the primary reason and you need to inform the bank, again I would strongly suggest you use the Wedington site as an example, what the possibilities are. With that being said, I think we thoroughly have gone over the plan and depending on what Perry Franklin comes back with, I think we can certainly work with you and will do so to make it possible. Bunch: I think it would actually be faster by doing it this way rather than having it go to Planning Commission and then have to go back and start over. Rogers: Let me ask one question. When is the next meeting? Edwards: I don't have a schedule. Let me find out for you. Bunch: Roughly two weeks. Rogers: Is there a chance to get comments from the staff before the meeting? Hoffman: I think you need to have another meeting with the staff, revise your plan or find out from Perry so that he can and come back and meet with them. Can you accommodate that on an informal basis before they revise their plan completely and bung it back? Edwards: I think so. Rogers: It's kind of hard to get this the day of the meeting. The last two times, I've gotten calls • • • Subdivision Committee October 12, 2000 Page 49 the afternoon before the meeting asking for extra information. I realize they are busy, so are we. It's really hard to drop everything and try to get information the day before. If we could get comments back earlier, it would be helpful. Edwards: I would say, at the very least, you could bring it in to me one day or Ron the next day. If we can't all get together at the same time, you can come in and see us one at time and we can take a look at it for sure. Rogers. Okay. Hoffman: We'll sure try to continue to work towards getting you approved quickly but with these corrections and so forth. Estes: You did a good job Joe. It looks good. Hoffman: It really does. Estes: It's not an easy piece of property to work with. Rogers: They have done quite a Job just trying to get the grading to work where it could be usable. Thank you very much. Hoffman: Thank you both. Gilbert: Thank you for the discussion, I do appreciate it. Estes: See you in a couple weeks. • • • Subdivision Committee October 12, 2000 Page 50 FP 00-4.00: Final Plat (Covington Park Ph. IV, pp 295) was submitted by Tom Hennelly of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Don Cozart for property located north of Hwy 45 and east of Hwy 265. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 11.6 acres with 23 lots proposed. Hoffman: The final item on our agenda today is a Final Plat for Covington Park. It was submitted by Tom Hennelly for Don Cozart for property located north of Hwy 45 and east of Hwy 265. It's zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains 11.6 acres with 23 lots proposed. Can you give us a staff update? Edwards- Yes. As you all know, I'm sure, the preliminary plat was approved for all the phases back on May 8, 1998. We've already seen the final plat to phase one and two, phase three is going to be at the next Subdivision Committee meeting, they have submitted that so phase four is before it but not by much An Administrative Item that was heard back on January 10, 2000, we granted a six month extension for the construction of the public street to connect to Highway 45. That is where our first condition comes from, they did say they would build that by November 13, 2000, and if that is not built and accepted by the City, we are going to stop issuing residential building permits for the entire development. It doesn't sound like that will be a problem. We do need a copy of the restrictive covenants providing for the maintenance of detention ponds, open swales, trails and landscaped islands and I want that in before we sign off on the final plat but other than that, we have no issues. Hoffman: Thank you. Chuck's gone, he left, he wanted to give you heck with you about something but he's gone. Hennelly: He pulled me outside and told me there was one issue with the owner, he was not aware, that Kittery Lane was a twenty-eight foot street rather than a twenty-four foot street like the other through streets in phase one and two but because of the connectivity with the north boundary line, it was a different classification of street and there was some additional grading that needed to be done but that was it Hoffman: Hennelly: Hoffman: You can coordinate that. Does that change this plan? No. This plan is as constructed and all they need to do is some additional grading before sidewalks will sign off of it. Okay. Why don't you say your name please? Subdivision Committee October 12, 2000 Page 51 Hennelly: Tom Hennelly with Jorgensen & Associates. Hoffman: Ron, do you have any issues? Petrie: Just a couple of clean-up items. Out there to the north of lots 155 and 156, label that as a fifty foot drainage easement. Hennelly: On the north? Petrie: Yes. You need to extend that to the right-of-way. Hennelly: Okay. Petrie: My only other comment has to do with setbacks on lots 150 and 170, that was discussed at Plat Review. Hoffman: 150 and 170? Hennelly: Yes. What we did, this temporary cul-de-sac is actually constructed as an equivalent of a permanent cul-de-sac but it is, in essence, a temporary cul-de-sac because we are required to stub out to the east. We were kind of caught in a catch 22 on what to do on lot 150 and 170. If we should limit the building area of those lots by off -setting the setback line from what is shown to be the fifty foot radius right-of-way that infnnges on the lot. Hoffman: What's the actual dimension? Hennelly: Of the setback? Hoffman: The setback to the right-of-way. Hennelly: From the setback to the right-of-way on both lots is seven and a half feet. The total setback from the curb is seventeen and a half feet as the cul-de-sac is constructed. Hoffman: What are your thoughts on that? What do you want to do about it? Edwards. I think he needs to move the building setback line from the curb. Hoffman: So you don't think this is going to go through? • • Subdivision Committee October 12, 2000 Page 52 Petrie: That's Just been City policy. Edwards: Yes. Petrie: You got a right-of-way and you have a building setback. If you do anything with this it's a waiver request. Edwards: It needs to be a variance. I think that it's fair to show it on there to put these owners on notice that when they come in for a permit, that's what we are going to be looking for. Hennelly: That they will have to adhere to that? Edwards- Yes. Hennelly: Okay. We don't have a problem doing that. This is one of those situations that you get into with the stub outs and we needed to find a solution to it. Hoffman: If staff is happy with it, I understand both sides of it. What is over here? What's is this corner in here? Hennelly: That's Josh Brown's property. It's Just agricultural Hoffman: Okay. So we really don't know then? Edwards: No. Hoffman: Okay. Bunch: Is that Brown's field? Hennelly: Not as long as Josh is alive. Hoffman: How old is he? Hennelly: It will be a long time. Ho man: Parks? • // • • • Subdivision Committee October 12, 2000 Page 53 Kim Rogers - Parks Operations Coordinator Rogers: We have had some dumping and I've been talking to Gary Atha about that out there and I did pass out flyers, letters for all the developers to contact Graham if they want a variance. I've contacted Kenny Yates with the Police Department and we are having some more problems out there and he is going to start fining them $500 every time. Hennelly: Okay. Rogers: Each occurrence. We gave them a warning. I've talked to them several times and that's it. If you will kind of tell them. Hennelly: I understand. Is that on the park? Rogers: Braden Park. Petrie: Phase one? Rogers: Yes. Hennelly: Is that called Braden Park? Rogers: Yes. B -R -A -D -E -N. Hennelly: Okay. Estes: Builders are dumping construction debris? Rogers: Yes. Estes: Are they burning it or hauling it off or are they just dumping it and leaving it? Rogers: They've had a semi tractor on it, they've had a blazer on it, they've had a tractor trailer on it last week, another is a trailer with a truck attached, a bull dozer or maybe it was a front-end loader. Hoffman: Do they need to re -grade anything? Rogers: Not yet but I haven't gone out there and checked the sidewalks. Just having them one • Subdivision Committee October 12, 2000 Page 54 warning, I'm getting Kenny Yates to fine them. Hennelly: Okay. I'll mention it to Gary. Estes: That woman's serious. Hennelly: I could tell. Estes: That's her mommy voice. Rogers. We are still taking money in lieu and we did talk to Gary Atha about taking that cul-de- sac. Hennelly: He said that you had talked to him. Rogers: It's declined. We are not going to take It back to the Parks Board. • Hennelly: Okay. • Hoffman: So you have the property owner's association entitled to that? Hennelly: Yes. Hoffman: Do we need anything shown on the plan about what's going to be there? Do you want to get a clear definition of what will be there? Hennelly: It's dust trees right now. I'm pretty sure that's what they intend on leaving it. Hoffman: Can we put a note that the existing trees to remain and be maintained just so we know what's there? Hennelly: We can. The only reason I hesitate on that is because that was not shown as preserved canopy. I don't know what the property owner's association wants to do. If they are going to own it and maybe they want to put a gazebo, the only reason I hesitate is, I don't want to limit the property owner's association to something that was not shown as preserved canopy. Hoffman: Do we know it's been shown as preserved canopy? • • Subdivision Committee October 12, 2000 Page 55 Edwards: Yes Hoffman: Okay. I guess they might make it a note that if they ever clear that it should be maintained. Edwards: That's what I'm getting in the covenants that they will have to maintain that. Hoffman: Okay. Anything else? Estes: Madame Chair? Hoffman: Yes. MOTION: Estes: I would move that we approve FP 00-4.00 subject to staff comments, Standards Conditions of Approval and building setbacks on lots 170 and 150 be corrected as discussed. Bunch: I second. Hoffman: I concur. Okay? Wait, we have to go to Planning Commission for Final Plat don't we? Edwards: No. Just preliminary. Ho an: Preliminary. Hennelly: Can I add one additional thing on here that Kim Hesse asked for? There is a really big sycamore tree just off the site here but in close proximity of the property line and I told her that we would try to save that by eliminating this easement on 169 and 170 and having the utilities routed around it. I didn't know whether that needed to be part of the record. Edwards: It's going down the front. Ho man: Before you file it, do you get in trouble with the sidewalks? Hennelly: No. It won't have any effect. I just didn't know whether that needed to be part of the • • Subdivision Committee October 12, 2000 Page 56 record of the meeting that that was a staff comment that she made to me but wasn't able to stay for the rest of the meeting. I told her that we would. If we don't eliminate it, we'll move it. Hoffman: Let the record show that our motion includes the relocation of the easement for 169 and 170. Thank you. Hennelly: Thank you. PUBLIC COMMENT: Hoffman: Public comment on this one? Ha, ha, see I remembered.