Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-03-01 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, March I, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN LSD 01-2.00: Page 2 FP 00-6.00: Page 19 FP 00-5.00: Page 24 LS 01-10.00: Page 27 AD 01-4.00: Page 31 Large Scale Development (RSC Rentals, pp 286) Forwarded Final Plat (Bridgeport Ph. IV, pp 295) Approved Final Plat (Covington Park Ph. III, pp 295) Approved Lot Split (J.E. Lindsey Ltd. Family Partnership, pp 175) Approved Administrative Item (2607 Charleston Crossing) Approved MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Lee Ward Bob Estes Laurel Hoffman STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Sara Edwards Tim Conklin Ron Petrie Chuck Rutherford Keith Shreve Kim Rogers Kim Hesse Perry Franklin • • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 1, 2001 Page 2 LSD 01-2.00: Large Scale Development (RSC Rentals, pp 286) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of J.M. Hooker Construction for property located West of Shiloh Drive on Williams Ford Tractor Property. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2 acres. The request is to build a building for equipment rental (Use Unit 17). Hoffman: Good morning. Welcome to the March 1, 2001, meeting of the Subdivision Committee. We have four items on the agenda this morning. Our first is a Targe scale development submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of J.M. Hooker Construction for property located West of Shiloh Drive on Williams Ford Tractor Property. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2 acres. The request is to build a building for equipment rental (Use Unit 17). Tim? Conklin: This project is actually located on the current Williams Ford Tractor outdoor storage area If you go out there, there is a lot of equipment being stored in this area They have done a property line adjustment and have created this parcel for this equipment rental building and use. The property is zoned C-2. Retail use is allowed. They are also going to have storage or the equipment that they rent out will be stored on this site. Conditions to address and discuss includes: screening of the dumpster on three sides; and compliance with the Commercial Design Standards and Design Overlay District regulations including signage. They are required to have a wood board fence within the overlay district and that will require them to remove the existing chain link fence. Sara, do you want to go over the elevations, what they are proposing? Edwards. They are proposing to put brick on three sides. It's a colonial red. They are doing a wall mounted sign as well as a monument sign and that's going to be made out of white color EFIS. I do have some elevations of the side Hoffman: I'm confused. Is this the placing of the existing sign? Conklin: This is an existing storage yard for Williams Ford Tractor equipment. If you go out there and you see all that equipment in the fields, this is actually part of that field that they are building on. Hoffman: Okay. Conklin: Basically we are not dealing with a metal building which is not allowed in the Overlay • District, they are using brick on all three sides facing I-540. They do have landscaping • • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 1, 2001 Page 3 shown up front as part of the Commercial Design Standards. Hoffman: The board fence has to go all the way around the whole site? Conklin: Yes. They were originally showing SB2 but now you are showing bermuda grass is this area? Jorgensen: To get up to our greenspace requirement. Conklin: The 25% open space? Jorgensen: Right. Hoffman: Anything else? Conklin: That's it for Planning. Hoffman: Chuck, sidewalks? Chuck Rutherford - Sidewalk & Trials Coordinator Rutherford: They are showing everything. Hoffman: Okay. Is this a sidewalk right here? Jorgensen: Yes. Rutherford: You do know that driveway approach needs to be concrete, not asphalt. Jorgensen: I thought we put that on here. Conklin: You've got a different surface shown. Jorgensen: I thought it was also spelled out. Conklin: Is Shiloh Drive the City's or the Highway Department? If it's Highway Department, you will need a permit from AHTD. • Jorgensen: I thought it was Highway Department's. We've already contacted them. • • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 1, 2001 Page 4 Hoffman: Ron, do you have any comments? Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie: Yes ma'am. Dave, as you know Jim Beavers reviewed all this so I'm kind of following up on his review. He had on drainage, provide one of the following: on-site detentions or a letter from the adjacent property owners to the south saying he understands the amount of type of increase in runoff. He agrees for the additional water to be directed towards his existing farm pond. Has anything been settled on that issue? Jorgensen: Not yet. We just found out who to contact. We had a hard time finding this owner to the south, this Guisinger it's in a trust and we know found out who to contact here in Fayetteville as it turns out. We are going to be talking to him about that. Right now out preliminary plan is the detention area. Petrie: I haven't seen any calculations. Hoffman: Will that be something you can determine before it goes to the Planning Commission? Jorgensen: Yes, in fact we've shown it on this plan right here to have maximum depth detention of about 12 inches. Petrie: I would like to see calculations. Jorgensen: I thought that Tom had already submitted that to Jim. Petrie: He might have. Jim was out of town all day yesterday. 1 looked all his stuff and couldn't find anything. I haven't reviewed them. Jorgensen: Right. We'll definitely be getting that to you. Hoffman: Is that acceptable to proceed with that before we get to agenda session? Conklin: I have one question for the applicant. The west elevation, do you what material that will be constructed out of'? Jorgensen: Sheet metal. I don't know for sure. Jim Key is the architect and he can answer that. • Key: It will be metal siding. I believe we've got three overhead doors on that side. We've Subdivision Committee Meeting • March 1, 2001 Page 5 • Hoffman: Conklin: got a facade over here that is metal siding with three overhead doors on it for access to the warehouse areas of the building, personnel can access there. That's not really visible from Dean Solomon? It's not. I guess I'll read through this again and look at it to make sure that we are complying with all regulations as to building material. This is the Overlay District and says "No structure shall be allowed that have metal sidewalls unless such metal siding is somewhere in appearance to wood, masonry, or natural looking material." Probably, for the record, I support allowing those doors and metal siding facing to the west considering the site. Hoffman: What color is it? Key: It's intended to be snow white. Conklin: I will break that out in our report to Planning Commission on that issue just to clarify that. Hoffman: Kim, do we have any existing trees? Kim Hesse - Landscape Administrator Hesse: I just have one suggestion. You are going to hide your sign with what's proposed. I might suggest that you wrap that around. You will still meet the requirements. So, we won't have complaints about the landscaping. Hoffman: It will be prettier. Hesse: Also, what's this showing? Jorgensen: That was just a landscape chips, something other than grass Hesse: That will also happen over here under these? Jorgensen: Yes. I see. Hesse: What you ought to do is make a bed that just wraps around here and does something • like that. Put one through here and a few trees here and shrubs in between. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 1, 2001 Page 6 Jorgensen: Hoffman: Conklin: Hoffman: Petrie: Hoffman: Conklin: I got you. That will work. Anything else from staff on this? I would like to make the Subdivision Committee aware that they do have this equipment storage in the back that's unpaved SB2. The only concern that we have discussed previously in pre -application meetings with the applicant was, dust and how much traffic. I think the equipment is going to be sitting out in this area and they are not going to have much traffic in and out of this area It's something for the Commission to consider. I tend to not have so much problem with SB2 when it's hidden like that because it is somewhat permeable for run-off and prefer it to lots and lots of asphalt. I have a couple of questions that is related to engineering issues. Is this not connected to City sewer, it's on a septic tank? Do I see a 500 gallon septic tank? Right. It's not available for this area Okay. So, we need to have the State Health Department approval as a part of the requirement for that septic tank? We typically haven't required that on a large scale development. This is 2 acres so it's over one and half. We can make that a condition. You are going to have to have septic tanks in order to build out there. Jorgensen: We can't do the project unless we have a septic tank. Hoffman: I guess that would be normal for us to do that but I was just surprised to see that there is water to it. Jorgensen. Yes ma'am. Out on the front here. Conklin: Jorgensen: Where are you at in the process of acquiring someone to go out there and do a perc test? We are going to take care of that but originally we had a field system located down in this lower area and now I've got it up here in the corner so it's better ground. That's one of the reasons we haven't done this yet. We wanted to make sure we get it approved before we do that. Subdivision Committee Meeting • March 1, 2001 Page 7 • Hoffman: For this wash bay you have a grease trap or sand trap? Jorgensen: Right. Hoffman: That's not connected to anything? Is it pumped out periodically? Jorgensen: It goes into the septic field system then the grease and sand trap is to remove that and it flows downstream from the domestic waste, it goes into the same system. Hoffman: That's okay with the federal regulations? Jorgensen: Yes. Hoffman: I don't know that much about them but I just hear that. In some areas, larger populations, there are now not letting them go back into the water. Jorgensen: We need to go into it downstream from the septic tank so that's how we got this right here. Conklin: So the wastewater from the wash bay is not going into the septic system? Jorgensen: It's Just not going into the septic tank. Hoffman: Then it just leaches into the ground. The grease and sediment is trapped and then you will pump that out from time to time? Jorgensen: Right. PUBLIC COMMENT: Hoffman: Just want to make sure I understood that. I'll take public comment. Is anybody here to address us on this? Yes sir, if you could come up and introduce yourself. Sager: My name is Tom Sager. I represent the property directly to the south. Here are copies of records I have My wife Louise is the other half owner of the property to the south. I have attached to what I've prepared for you here, a letter from Louise's brother Paul, who lives in Southlake, Texas, pertaining to the development of this property. I'll let his letter stand on his own, I'll only comment on mine. We own one half of the property, 25 acres, adjoining the proposed LSD on the south side. We are opposed to the • • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 1, 2001 Page 8 development for the following reasons: Williams Ford Tractor is "grandfathered" from the Design Overlay District along I-540, but the proposed LSD is not. The existing Williams Ford Tractor location mars the beauty and appearance to the whole I-540 around the west side of Fayetteville. It would be nice if Williams Ford Tractor would clean up their existing location before asking to expand a "rental" business on the same property. The owners are the same. I doubt very seriously that if a LSD of this nature were proposed in a different location along either side of I-540 or within the Design Overlay District in Fayetteville that it would receive favorable consideration without have strong constraints on appearances. Specifically, it wouldn't look like a farm implement graveyard. From the drawings that have been submitted for this LSD, we noticed a "grass lined swale" that starts on the Williams Ford Tractor property and terminates on the Guisinger property. This is not acceptable. In the minutes of the meeting with the utility companies of February 14, 2001, Ms. Edwards addresses this issue with the representatives of RSC Equipment Rental and suggested that the owners of the adjacent property, Guisinger property, be contacted and obtain their consent. We have not been contacted and will not consent to this drainage. Their drainage is not our problem but theirs. Runoff from their property needs to be directed into storm drainage on their property rather than the Guisinger property. The proposed six foot chain link fence would not be adequate to conceal their property from the adjoining property. It is our opinion that if this development is allowed that a twelve foot masonry type fence would be more appropriate. History speaks for itself. Furthermore, if I'm not mistaken, a chain link fence is not allowed to be constructed on property inside the Design Overlay District. There is a new chain link fence shown on the drawing on the north side of the property separating RSC Equipment Rental from Williams Ford Tractor. What assurances will there be that "equipment storage area" won't turn into another farm implement graveyard? The only restrictive comment on the drawings that have been submitted is "no heavy equipment allowed over field lines". The proper operation of the septic tank is very important not only to the property owner, but also to the adjacent property owners. We encourage you to give property consideration to the appearance of the property as consideration is given to the septic field lines. Commercial Design Standards will have to be given property consideration if this LSD is allowed to develop. We have observed many meetings of the Planning Commission where the design of building discourages unarticulated structures inside commercial zoning. It is our opinion that the proposed building qualifies as an unarticulated structure. In closing, we respectfully request that this LSD be passed to the whole Planning Commission and not be given approval at this level. Hoffman: Thank you. I see we have another letter and this is from Paul Guisinger. I think we'll • go ahead, if you don't mind, and read this into the record (Exhibit "A") but not read it • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 1, 2001 Page 9 up front. Do you have some comments you would like to make other than what you just read? Sager: No. Just what we submitted in writing for consideration of the Planning Commission. Hoffman: Thank you very much. Is there any other member of the public that would like to discuss this matter? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Hoffman: I'll bring the discussion back to the Committee and to the applicant. Would you like to respond to his comments? Jorgensen: Let's start with item number one, cleaning up the existing location. I don't know about the City being able to enforce that problem. As far as the project at hand, RSC Rental which is located in the southeast corner of the Williams Ford Tractor, we are abiding by all the rules and regulations that the City has concerning the Design Overlay District. That's the reason we have been going through this process, as you all realize. We've brought it to Plat Review and addressed all their comments. The revised plan that you have before you is a result of all of their comments that we received at Plat Review. We do have a wooden fence going around the property instead of a chain link fence. That is one of the options allowed for screening. Hoffman: Is the screening requirement only for six feet or is it higher? What does the ordinance say? Conklin: We probably need to address what is going to be stored back here and that way we can at least determine the height of screening that would be appropriate. The first drawing, Mr. Sager, did have chain link on this north side, that's been removed and they are showing a six foot high wood privacy fence. That has been changed from their first submittal. The latest one has changed that. With regard to the use, this is equipment rental, the property is zoned C-2. We've allowed equipment rentals is C-2 in Fayetteville in other locations We are not doing something we haven't allowed in other locations. Jorgensen: As far as the type of equipment, I don't think it's going to be an "equipment graveyard". You never know what's going to happen back there but I think that it's going to be equipment that people are going to come in here and rent similar to United Equipment and all the other equipment rental places that you go to. That's what going Subdivision Committee Meeting • March 1, 2001 Page 10 • Sager: to be stored in the back. As far as the drainage goes, we had anticipated that you might not want any extra drainage running onto your property than what's going on right now and that's the reason we have designed a preliminary design for a detention pond. Mr. Petrie was referring to it earlier. We designed a detention pond to make sure that the post development flow, the drainage that runs off this site after we development the property, does not exceed the pre -development flow. That's the reason for the detention pond. The detention pond is very shallow and it will be located just north of your property. It will prevent this excess flow from going onto your property. This thing right here is called a trapezoidal wier. It's a concrete structure that's built to regulate the flow that comes off this property onto your property. That's what our plan is, is to install this. The ponding will occur in this area right here and the maximum depth is about 12 inches. It slowly runs out onto your property and we have drainage calculations that the Engineering Department will review to make sure that this is adequate. The drainage runs onto your property right now, as you probably realize. There is a pond down here on your property and that's where the runoff is going now. We are not changing that drainage pattern at all. It's going that same route, it's just that what we have to do is regulate this flow so it doesn't exceed the flow that's going onto your property at this time. What will be increasing the flow that goes on the property will be anything that is asphalted around the building right here that doesn't have a way in which to leach back into the ground. Jorgensen: Right. Sager: We realize there is water flowing onto our property now from there. Water runs down hill. We really don't want any more of it running on our property than what's there and as far as the pond is concerned, it could be gone tomorrow. Conklin: Mr. Sager, I want to make sure you have the most complete information when you come to the Planning Office. Just looking in the file, I do have one for Subdivision Committee in here. I'll make sure my staff makes the applicant or public aware that when you look through our files, as it goes through the process, we have the ones that were first submitted for Technical Plat Review and now we have one submitted for Subdivision. Sager: They were very helpful with me yesterday and I appreciate it. • Conklin: The key is looking at this label and determining what meeting it's going to. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 1, 2001 Page 11 Hoffman: Conklin: Sager: Hoffman: Jorgensen: Sager: Jorgensen: Sager: Jorgensen: Sager: Conklin: Hoffman: Jorgensen: Hoffman: Jorgensen. Does he have that plan now, can we provide him with one? Evidently he doesn't have it. This is the one originally submitted probably for plat review. Why don't you leave that one so you don't get them mixed up and take a new one? It will have dates on it but the one you've got is an earlier date, I'm sure. One of the things the staff was noted is any public communication that goes out on this property, our address is shown on our letters are wrong. I understand how you obtained that. It is confusing. We went to the courthouse twice. Evidently it's not Rockwood Trail right? That's where we live. That's good then. There are different deeds that are on the property. Looking through our Design Standards and Overlay District Standards and buffers and screening, it doesn't have a minimum height. It talks about view obscuring fences for salvage yards, junk yards, that type of thing. Actually, in the Overlay District it talks about vegetative screening, not even a fence. There is a fence that's proposed, six feet high. I guess what I would like to hear from the applicant is, what's going to be stored out here and that way we can at least figure out what's going to be visible over the fence. What's the largest piece of equipment you are going to store? You've been by United Rental Equipment, I would imagine you are talking backhoes and miscellaneous equipment. Those big cherry picker things? There could be some of that too, yes. It might take a 20 foot fence to screen something like that. • • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 1, 2001 Page 12 Hoffman: I would like to add a condition of approval that I think would help the screening issue. That equipment not be permitted to be stored in it's full extension. They put those cherry pickers way up in the air and it really is unsightly. In the Overlay District we do have some latitude to say the equipment storage is behind the building. It is screened with a six foot fence but if we don't put the front end loaders up in the air and the cherry pickers up as tall as they can go, I'm not sure on the exact appropriate wording but I would like to put that as a condition of approval. I would like you to run that by your client if you would. Conklin: They do show a display area up in front where they would like to display some equipment which, I'm sure they want to show cherry pickers up in the air. As staff I'll take a look at it and give you my recommendation or advice. Hoffman: I think that's similar to a sign and I would opposed to it particularly if it has a rental sign on it like they generally do. Like their logo on the deal. I think that might help on that situation for visibility. Key: Is display allowed in the District? Conklin: Yes, Nelm's Auto Plaza displays quite a few products out there. Yes, a display is allowed. Key: It's understandable if the storage area could be restricted because the merchandise is stored in that lot but a display area if it's acceptable, it's been done in the past and it's something the standard provides for. I think we plan on being able to display the merchandise there. Hoffman: I understand what you are saying. Personally, I find that those are unsightly and you need a rental yard, you can usually find one. Can we ask the sign people if that constitutes a sign? Conklin: Yes. I would be more than happy to get with our Inspections Division and talk with them a little about that. Hoffman: If it's a legal thing to do, I won't oppose it. I always want to meet the ordinances and that is what we are here to do. If it's something that could be construed to be sign, I would oppose it. • Conklin: I agree with everything you are saying and Mr. Sager, that the Overlay District purpose • • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 1, 2001 Page 13 of that regulation is to protect the appearance of that corridor. We need to make sure that we are doing everything possible within the law to do that. Hoffman: Any other comments from you guys, motions? Estes: I have some questions. With regard Dave, to the wash bay and grease trap, if I understand correctly that is going to go directly into the lateral lines and feed lines? Jorgensen: Yes. Estes: What does Arkansas Pollution and Ecology, EPA, have to say about that. We are going to have detergents, chemicals, carbons and it's not going to go through any process, they are going to go directly into the field lines and then directly into the ground water, is that right? Jorgensen: This is actually how car washes and other similar facilities are done in areas that don't have a sewer, we've designed them like this. You have to go through a grease trap. Estes: I understand that. Can you give me any assurance that if we approve this LSD as is with regard to the wash bay and grease trap that we are not going to be in violation of any Arkansas Pollution and Ecology, EPA rules and regulations? Jorgensen: I'm not aware of one and like I said, we have to get approval from the Health Department in order to have this. We have no other way of providing for wastewater treatment in this area other than spend about $20,000 to go to the west. It just tums out that the closest sewer line is over at Dean Solomon Road. Actually, it's just west of Dean Solomon Road. Estes: That is a concern that I have. I don't want to be approving an LSD if we are going to be dumping these carbons, detergents and chemicals into the ground water through the field lines would be a violation of Arkansas Pollution and Ecology or EPA. I'm not going to go research that. Jorgensen: I can definitely find out. Estes: I'm going to look at the applicant to do that. Key: I've been talking with representatives of RSC and their company in Houston that • assisted developing these systems and we've been contacted by the manufacturer of Subdivision Committee Meeting • March 1, 2001 Page 14 • • that wash system. I believe I referred them to Tom, an engineer at Dave's office. They install these types of systems all over the country. They have a particular different collection and grease interception separation system for septic application as opposed to a city sewer. We are aware we have to get State Health Department approval on the whole system. In fact, we can't be issued a building permit until the State Health Department approval is granted and the plumbing and gas approval for the building is always subject to the septic system being approved as well. So, they all go hand in hand. It will meet all the requirements of the state and the federal regulations. Hoffman: So not only the city but the state will be inspecting the sand trap? Key: The county. Estes: No, the city won't do that. Key: The state and county will address the septic system. Estes: Do you know if this wash system is EPA permitted? Key: I'm not sure. Estes: Those are some questions that I would ask. Jorgensen: I designed these exact same things and they are, I know. Estes: You put them out into the field lines and dumped them into the ground water? Jorgensen: Yes. Key: I think in essence, that separator for the system is more like a separate septic tank for the car wash than the other one that's being used. Conklin: These field lines right here, you can have them ten feet from the property line? Jorgensen: Ten foot is the minimum that you can have. Hoffman: Why don't we have more information? I think it would help to know how many times you expect to have to empty this grease trap, if the manufacturer has that information available, based on the number of washes per day or something. I think that's key. If • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 1, 2001 Page 15 you empty it enough, then it will probably be okay. Jorgensen: Did you mention this has to go to the Planning Commission? Hoffman: Yes. Jorgensen: Because? Conklin: Not all LSD's have to go to the Planning Commission. This is one going to go to Planning Commission. Jorgensen: Because? What's the reason for it? Hoffman: We are not going to approve it here. Conklin: There are some questions that are unanswered that you need to research. Jorgensen: Other than this question right here, I noticed that at the beginning of the discussion. Conklin: I would say that one of the adjoining property owners has brought up this issue of unarticulated wall surfaces. Typically, the Subdivision Committee will discuss that. Hoffman: We haven't gotten to that yet. The fence height is going to be an issue. Jorgensen: It goes because, right? Okay. Hoffman: I can say that normally if you were asking for a waiver, we would automatically forward you to the Planning Commission but we are three of nine and if there are questions that the other folks... Estes: Conklin: Estes: I can help out on this. I'm not going to vote for approval at this level and I mis-spoke a moment ago, I said I wouldn't do any independent research, I may. I think Mr. Sager may do some research. I'm going to be asking some questions. I am concerned about the unarticulated wall surface. What elevation is that? South and north side. That's going to be visible from Shiloh, going and coming. What can we do with that? • • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 1, 2001 Page 16 Conklin: Key: They already have a fairly short band on the bottom. We have a masonry waynescoat on the bottom of the structure and a little red brick with white trim. Conklin: What can you do to articulate it? Hoffman: How long is it? Key: 80 feet. I think something we've got to consider what the function of the building is in terms of articulating it. Putting a store front on that side doesn't necessarily work with the site plan aspect and the parking layout. The majority, two-thirds of the building is warehouse space. I have discussed with owner of a possibility of windows in the warehouse space and they are not proposed to that. We can add windows to the north and south side in addition to the windows that are in the sales area up front of the store, the owner is not opposed to that. Estes: Can those windows be secured because you are going to have warehouse space? Key: They obviously won't be as big as these windows, 2 by 2, 3 by 3 or 3 by 4, a little higher to provide a natural light. Estes: You mentioned the brick is going to be what color? Key: Red brick. Estes: Then the other material? Key: The base is a split faced block, masonry material is going to be a charcoal, dark gray color. Estes: What's going to be white? Key: The synthetic stucco material, the EFIS. Jorgensen: That would be at the top Jim? Key: That would be at the front facade of the entry portico and would be visible from the 11111 sides and extends above the main part of the building. It will have a white gutter and Subdivision Committee Meeting • March 1, 2001 Page 17 • Estes: down spout. Is that a bright white? Key: There is a color board that was submitted to the City with various samples on it. I'm not sure if they have the actual metal building trim color shown. I believe it did. Estes: Does that come in earth tones or anything other than white? Key: It comes in beige, tans, blacks, browns, bronze and white. With the red and dark, in essence, black, we felt the white was the more appropriate trim as opposed to a tan. RSC's color scheme is black and white and they preferred a white building with black trim as their standard. We proposed the red brick because it would be more appealing for the environment, location and City standard purposes. There is not a white sample on the board itself. It's my understanding, I remember looking at the sample but I don't have a copy of the material with me, that is the sample of the synthetic surface on the main facade portico. It's referred to as a marble white, brilliant white. It will be a finish of this nature. Estes: I think that is alright. Key: The metal building will be the same white, it's not a bright resilient. It's referred to as snow white, a little bit softer. Hoffman: Can you get a sample of it for Planning Commission? Snow white can be implied as bright white. Estes: Which implies flashy colors. Conklin: I'll throw this out as an idea since we've had other commercial buildings use this architectural feature, these columns. You could possibly do columns down the side, incorporating those gutters. It's something to consider. Ward: Another thing you can do somewhere along there is put another color brick. It kind of breaks it up. 80 feet of red brick is too much. Key: Do you have a color preference? We can do whatever the Commission would like. • Hoffman: It's hard to say. Subdivision Committee Meeting • March 1, 2001 Page 18 • • Key: If you would like to propose something that the Planning Commission would like to look at, we'll look at adding windows, bands, awnings, columns. Ward: Just articulation. We try not to get into that part of it. We just want to break up two 80 foot red brick walls. Hoffman: I've think you've got some direction to do that and if you could take it a step further and have that for the full Commission, that would be great. MOTION: Estes: I would move that we forward LSD 01-2.00 to the full Commission subject to all comments and discussion. Ward: I'll go ahead and second that. Personally, I think this is a separate issue than Williams Tractor is. This is a 2 acre parcel that we are looking at. Actually, I think it could be an asset to the property to the south and not a hindrance. We are requiring you to make it a nice looking commercial design building This is going to be a pretty expensive project when it's finished. I'll definitely second. Hoffman: I'll concur. As I said earlier, I'm mainly interested to make sure that if this is a use by right that we meet all the ordinances and do a good job of it. I think that is our charge and we'll see everybody back at Planning Commission. There will be some revisions. Those will probably be available from staff the Thursday before the next Planning Commission meeting? Conklin: Yes. Their revisions are due next Monday by 10:00 a.m. Hoffman: They'll have the drainage done and more information on the building. I would keep in touch about that. Thank you everybody very much. Subdivision Committee Meeting • March 1, 2001 Page 19 FP 00-6.00: Final Plat (Bridgeport Ph. IV, pp 295) was submitted by Michael B. Marie, P.C.S. of Engineering Design Associates, P.A. on behalf of Creekwood Hills Development, Inc. for property located west of Trillium Lane and New Bridge Road The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 12.49 acres with 29 lots proposed. Hoffman: Our third item is a final plat for Bridgeport Subdivision, submitted by Michael Marie of Engineering Design Associates of behalf of Creekwood Hills Development for property locate west of Trillium Lane and New Bridge Road This property is zoned R-1, low density residential and contains approximately 12.49 acres with 29 lots proposed. Tim, can you bring us up to date on this? Conklin: Sure. This is final plat for Bridgeport Phase IV. It contains 20 lots, 12.49 acres Conditions to address includes a sewer assessment of $5,400 is due prior to the signing of the final plat and also a copy of payment for the installation of street lights has been provided. The guarantee that the street lights will be installed is that they contract with Ozark and have proof that payment has been received and there is a contract for the street lights. Other than that, that's all that Planning staff has at this time. Edwards: Can I add one thing? I did not get a note that sidewalks have to be guaranteed but they are aware of that. That is a typical condition that I add. Hoffman: That's put on the plat? Edwards. They guaranty it with a letter of credit so when each house comes through, they build a sidewalk. Hoffman: You were aware of that? Marie: It's on the plat in the notes. Hoffman: That took care of sidewalks, do you have anything to add to that? Ron? Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie: The only comment I had was a request that plat you bring in with signatures have a legible line type. For water and sewer, you didn't call where it goes, just put it on the legend with a corresponding like type. • Marie: What are you talking about? Subdivision Committee Meeting • March 1, 2001 Page 20 • • Petrie: See the line pipe you are using for water and sewer? Hoffman: Are you talking about in the legend? Petrie: It's not shown in the legend. Estes: It's Just on the plat. It's part of the problem. Petrie: Can you work on that so we can follow it better with the plat? Ward: Can you show him what you want? Marie: I know what he means. Hoffman: Do you need a bigger plat period? Petrie: If you can take a look at the next final plat that we have you can really tell the difference. Ward: That's why I'm saying show him what you are expecting. Hoffman: Anything else? Petrie: That's all. Hoffman: Kim, for parks are we alright on that? Kim Rogers - Parks Operations Coordinator Rogers: We probably need to meet with Bill Helmer. We were going to do a walk through yesterday but, I assume it got canceled due to weather. We probably need to meet with you just to do a quick walk through. Mike, we need a warranty deed, not signed or anything but just to check the acreage credit change. The land agent hasn't had time to check it yet. The channel post and signs are still at the office. I didn't bring the signs because they are heavy and along with the channel posts, I have a hard time. If you can make an appointment with me or come by. Helmer: I'll have a crew go pick them up. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 1, 2001 Page 21 Rogers. Call first to make sure I can get it all ready. I'll get the maintenance guys to get them ready. Helmer. That's at your place? Rogers: Yes. 1445 Happy Hollow. I believe all the rocks and sediment have been temporarily fixed by Bill Helmer. Terry Gulley our Parks Maintenance Superintendent has inspected that and thought it was okay. I'm not sure if the curb cut has been made on Trillion Drive that's why I have to go by there and check out the parking. There was a lot of tree stumps, brush and debris off of Trillion Drive, I'm not sure if that's been cleaned up. Helmer. It has been. - Rogers: Okay. We just have to walk through. Hoffman: So you can take care of those housekeeping items before the final plat is signed? Rogers. Yes. Their will be an acreage credit change with the money in lieu change because it's a little bit off. Hoffman: Did we resolve the ongoing drainage cleanup issues? Have we done anything about that? Rogers: Not ongoing. Hoffman: What are we doing with it? Helmer. I've addressed the offsite issues with Mr. Boynton pertaining to the Boynton and Clack properties which, I think during this time he's actually purchased the Clack property so, it all deals with him. We have made those changes in there to his satisfaction. Petrie: Before I sign the plat, I'll follow up any conversations I've had with you and make sure he's satisfied before we'll sign the plat. Hoffman: Petrie: We've done enough work to make sure this isn't going to stop up again? That's something we are working with the Parks Department to try to resolve. Subdivision Committee Meeting • March 1, 2001 Page 22 Rogers: We are having to approve some money into our budget to help clean up some of this mess and prevent if from eroding more. We are working with Ron on that for ideas. Hoffman: Any other staff comments? I'll bring it to the applicants if you could introduce yourselves please? Marie: My name is Michael Marie, I'm a land surveyor with Engineering Design Associates. Hoffman: Do you have any presentation or just want to answer questions as we go on? Marie: We'll just answer questions. It pretty much speaks for itself, I think, at this point. PUBLIC COMMENT: Hoffman: I'll take public comment if anybody has anything to say. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: • Hoffman: I11 bring it back to the Committee. • Estes: Madame Chair, I have a question. Kim? In the lower right hand corner of our plat, is the 6.6 acres for park dedication, do we need a warranty deed or how are we going to get title for that? Has title passed? Rogers: No. Estes: What are your plans for that? Rogers: We need to go through this process before we sign off on the final plat. He's submitted a warranty deed, legal description and everything for Ed Connell, our Land Agent, to check over. He hasn't had ample time. Estes: I have no other questions. MOTION: Ward: Madame Chair? I'll go ahead and move that we approve FP 00-6.00 for final plat approval for Bridgeport with all comments. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 1, 2001 Page 23 Estes: Madame Chair, I'lI second. Hoffman: I concur. Thank you. i • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 1, 2001 Page 24 FP 00-5.00: Final Plat (Covington Park Ph. III, 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 11.06 acres with 29 lots proposed. Hoffman: The next item will be the Final Plat for Covington Park Phase III 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 11.06 acres with 29 lots proposed. Tim, can you bring us up to date? Conklin: Sure this is a Final Plat. This will provide the connection to Township and over to Highway 265 and the elementary and middle schools. This road was a requirement to be constructed by November 13, 2000. We gave them an extension on that. They did construct it within the time of the extension however, it has not been opened up because of the liability of it not being a City street. I have agreed to not have them remove the barricades until we get the final plat approved. This will open that street up and allow another way in and out of Covington Park Subdivision and Candlewood Subdivision for people going to the east. The only condition to address is that we do need a copy of the receipt for payment of the street light requirement with the electric company. That's the only thing we have to get in order for us to sign it for Planning. Sara Edwards - Associate Planner Edwards: Again, sidewalks must be guaranteed through me prior to Planning signing off. Highway 45 should be dedicated by warranty deed. Hoffman: Sidewalks? Keith Shreve - Public Lands Maintenance Shreve: No comment. Hoffman: Ron? Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie: David, if you would add the 100 year water surface elevation with your detention pond • and label it somewhere. Also, show a minimum benchmark on lot 130 which means • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 1, 2001 Page 25 you need really need to add a benchmark somewhere down on the west side of this site. You've got one way far over here to the east. Are you going to have a benchmark in that area to the plat? Jorgensen: We can sure do that. Petrie: The easement on the west side of lot 130, drainage easements going into that detention pond, can you kind of connect all that up so it works a little better? You don't show any drainage easement on lot 130. Hoffman: Where it crosses? Petrie. Yes. Last comment, the sewer line east of the detention pond, if you can make that easement ten feet from the sewer line? Jorgensen: Okay. Petrie: That's my last comment. Estes: Ron, I don't see that. Petrie: That's the sewer line right here. Hoffman: I have a question about the sewer access drive. Do we need to specify the paving material for that on the plat? Petrie: It's going to be installed before we'll sign the final plat. Hoffman: What is it going to be? Petrie: It's just going to be gravel. Hoffman: Is there any reason to put a sign up that says "Not a street" or anything like that so people don't drive by the house on lot 130 and 129? Petrie: The one thing you'll have, you won't have a curb cut, like a driveway. Jorgensen: It won't be real obvious. Subdivision Committee Meeting • March 1, 2001 Page 26 Petrie: They show it between the sidewalk and the curb but actually there won't be any gravel there either. Hoffman. It won't look like they are supposed to drive back in there? Petrie: Right. Hoffman: That's it? Anybody else? Conklin: I need to ask Ron a question. The 20 foot drainage easement over this trickle channel that's going through the pond, we don't have an easement over the rest of the pond because it's privately maintained, is that the reason? Petrie: Right. Privately owned. That's noted on the plat. Hoffman: Do we need any kind of guard rail around it, is it very deep? • Petrie: It's four or five feet deep. It's set far enough off the road and sidewalk, it wasn't required. • Hoffman: We don't typically unless it's right there. I just want to make a comment and thank the developer for addressing the connectivity in this area It's very important and we appreciate it. With that said, does anybody have anything else before we make a motion? MOTION: Ward: I'll go ahead and make a motion that we approve FP 00-5.00 for the final plat approval of Covington, with all staff comments and dedication of Highway 45 by deed, drainage easement through lot 130, ten foot easement along the west line. Estes: Madame Chair, I second. Hoffman: I concur. Thank you very much. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 1, 2001 Page 27 LS 01-10.00: Lot Split (J.E. Lindsey Ltd. Family Partnership, pp 175) was submitted by Chris Parton of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of J.E. Lindsey Ltd. Family Partnership for property located at the NE corner of Joyce Blvd. and Park Oaks Drive. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 1.83 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 1.29 acres and 0.48 acres. Hoffman: The final item is a lot split submitted by Chris Parton of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of J.E. Lindsey Ltd. Family Partnership for property located at the NE corner of Joyce Blvd. and Park Oaks Drive. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 1.83 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 1.29 acres and 0.48 acres. Tim? Conklin: Sure. This is a lot split. The property is being split in order to build a Girl Scout '.. Council office building on the corner of Joyce and this private drive. The conditions to address are no additional curb cuts shall be allowed on Joyce Boulevard. Documentation of a private access easement shall be provided prior to filing this lot split. The sidewalk will be constructed as part of the Park Apartments LSD that was approved on November 27, 2000. When that large scale development came through, Park Apartments, they did show the sidewalk down in this area being constructed. Petrie: I need to make a comment on that. Chris, correct me if I'm wrong, we are taking money in lieu? Parton: Actually the developer is going construct it. Petrie: They are going to built it? Parton: Yes, they are going to build it themselves. Petrie: It's going to be concrete the match the other trail? Parton: Yes. Petrie: Okay. As part of the project, the City is about to bid out this whole trail on Joyce Hoffman: That was part of the LSD wasn't it? Didn't we put that on that? Parton: Yes. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 1, 2001 Page 28 Hoffman: Parton: You're just confirming. At the time, we were unaware that the City was about to give a contract on this trail project out there. As part of the lot split, we were given the option to pay the City to construct it or the developer could construct it themselves. They decided to construct it themselves. Rutherford: That will fall under the same category, Chris you know you have to call my office for inspection? Yes. Pretty much the large scale was approved for tract 2B? Parton: Hoffman: Parton: Hoffman: Parton: Hoffman: Parton: Hoffman: Parton: Conklin: Parton: It was approved for the overall tract by 5C2. Now Mr. Lindsey has come back and he's going to donate what is being labeled on this tract as 5C2B to the Girl Scouts. The apartments will be built on 5C2A. We have some existing apartments back in here? Yes. So this will just be a continuation of that? Yes. This private drive to the west is the one that will be showing an access easement before this is filed? Yes. We'll do that. Actually, lot 5C2B will own to the center of that drive. I'm not sure an access easement is necessary. We need an access easement. Just looking at this. This is part of the large scale with the apartments which is owned by Lindsey so, he's combining these properties together and they will be developed. We need to make sure that if this was ever sold off... There is a property line right here, right? Yes. Subdivision Committee Meeting • March 1, 2001 Page 29 • Conklin: We could probably do it two ways, if you didn't want to show an access easement all the way up through here, do a property line adjustment and combine that with that and we can do that administratively. Then I'm not going to be so worried about this being sold off without any access. Technically, just on paper, if someone came into my office I would have problems dealing with that. Hoffman: This is like the same thing like we had on Sassafras. Conklin: Yes. I would like an easement or we do a property line adjustment and just do an easement over here so they have access. Parton: Sure. PUBLIC COMMENT: Hoffman: We've kind of taken everything out of turn here. Does any public have anything to say about this? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Hoffman: I'll bring it back to the staff, applicant. You need to introduce yourself for the record please. Parton: Chris Parton with Crafton, Tull & Associates. Hoffman: To the Subdivision Committee for motions or comments. MOTION: Estes: Madame Chair. I would move that we approve LS 01-10.00 a lot split for the J E Lindsey Limited Family Partnership subject to staff comments. Ward: I'll second. Hoffman: I'll concur. Thank you. Chuck Rutherford - Sidewalk and Trails Committee • Rutherford: I was over at the Park Apartments. We had a meeting with Mr. Lindsey last week and Subdivision Committee Meeting • March 1, 2001 Page 30 he wasn't aware of a trail issue. He was wondering why the trail couldn't go on the other side of the creek. He wasn't aware of the current position. He wasn't even aware of it. • • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 1, 2001 Page 31 AD 01-4.00: Administrative Item (2607 Charleston Crossing) was submitted by Mrs. John Brunner for property located at 2607 Charleston Crossing. The request is to reduce the green space between the sidewalk and street from 4' to 2'. Edwards: We do have one more item. It's very short. I'm sorry it didn't get on your agenda. We have it on a later agenda. It's Chuck's item, it's a sidewalk over at Charleston Crossing and I'll let him talk. Chuck Rutherford - Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator Rutherford: What we have here, Travis do you want to explain what we got? We have a manhole that's too close to the street. This is in Savannah Estates. Savannah Estates has been very adamant of holding up their four foot greenspace width. We've ran into this more than once. This project, when it was put together on the approved set of plans, approved plat for this subdivision, it called for four foot sidewalks, four foot greenspace. Well, when the project was built, and this was prior to the Sidewalk and Trails Division existing, it was built without sidewalks even being considered. The grades are all up and down and the utilities are all different heights and everything. What we did, this is what I call a transition subdivision, we worked the best we can to make the sidewalk fit and to be user friendly and to meet ADA and the whole subdivision. I think we've done a very good job of that. This one here happens to be one that it makes sense to move the greenspace to two feet right here because of the elevation of an existing manhole that's already been constructed and the height the way that was graded to make it work out. If we move it back to the four feet we are going to have a vertical drop from the manhole, which is about four feet I think, straight down to the sidewalk and they have rules in their covenants about height in retaining walls. Brooks: Rutherford: Conklin: Brooks: Rutherford: It's at the end of a cul-de-sac. You pull right up to it, you don't pass by it. I have a couple of pictures of it, it doesn't really reflect the elevation very well but this is what it looks like out there. This is the manhole right here. It doesn't show the elevation real well. This little stamp up here is the homeowner association approval? Yes. Yes. I wanted to bring this to the Subdivision Committee. Again, the reasoning is, • there has been a couple of times where I made the decision myself to move the Subdivision Committee Meeting • March 1, 2001 Page 32 • • Hoffman: Rutherford: Brooks: Hoffman: Rutherford: Hoffman: Rutherford: Brooks: Hoffman: Brooks: sidewalk from the location of what it said on the approved plat and I've gotten flack from the homeowner's association to do that. Brookbury happens to be one of them. That's why, from now on, I want to try to bring it back to the Subdivision Committee and hopefully get approval from the homeowner's association. Is the retaining wall option just too expensive? Is that the problem? I think it's more than that. It's not the expense, I don't think, it has to do with the height. Isn't that right, Travis? If she puts a wall there, it's going to be pretty tall and she's got kids and she doesn't want the kids to jump off the wall. Then she's got a wall and a rail. It's like right in front of her house. She doesn't like that idea at all either. If we could move the sidewalk out, it will still be a very steep grade but it could all be planted, done and maintained with a plant material because it's not huge. Since with the end of the cul-de-sac not heavily trafficked, we are not likely to have cars speeding by two feet from the sidewalk. Right. What we've done is, at the existing property lines on both ends, we've brought it back to what the requirement is and at the required elevation Another thing, we've raised the elevation six inches above the normal to help make that more gradual from the curb back. Again, both property lines will be back to what the requirement is. That sounds like a good proposition to me. We've been working on this for a year and a half. Chuck is saying at the end of both property lines, there is actually two lots. Will you introduce yourself? My name is Travis Brooks and I'm representing the client, Mrs. Bruner on the lot that has the substantial area. Because of where the other water meters are, it's going to partially go over onto the Johnson residence. We've got, at a approximate, twenty-six feet. We could change that to a maximum of twenty-eight feet if we needed to, to make sure that it's getting back, as soon as possible, to the four foot setback which is what the property owner's are reminding me as of this morning. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 1, 2001 Page 33 Estes: Madame Chair? Hoffman: Yes. Estes: Travis, the stamp indicates that the Savannah Estates Property Owner's Association has approved and they signed off? Brooks: Yes. I don't know where this original goes. Yes. Conklin: I'll put it in our file. Hoffman: I want to memorialize it on the plat somehow. We have a final plat, don't we? Conklin: We can make a notation on the final plat. Estes: What is this a sidewalk variance, is that what we are doing? Rutherford: It's a elevation and distance variance. Conklin: What's shown on the final plat, we are modifying that. So, the approved final plat sidewalk location modification. MOTION: Estes: Madame Chair, I move that we amend the final plat of Savannah Estates to reflect the requested elevation and distance change and that amendment be reflected on the final plat recorded of record. Ward: I'll second that. Hoffman: Good idea, thank you. I'll concur. We are adjourned.