Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-06-14 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, June 14, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED LS 01-17.00: Lot Split (McCarthy, pp 569) Page 6 LSP 01-20.00:Lot Split (Hannan, pp 529) Page 8 LSP 01-21.00:Lot Split (Habitat for Humanity, pp 561) Page 11 FP 01-5.00: Page 16 LSD 01-11 Page 24 LSD 01-18 Page 29 LSD 01-19 Page 33 Final Plat (Stonewood Subdivision, pp 60) .00:Large Scale Development (Elder Apt., pp 403) .00:Large Scale Development (City of Fayetteville, Skate Park, pp 562) .00:Large Scale Development (Hometown Developments, pp 524) MEMBERS PRESENT Lee Ward Sharon Hoover Don Bunch STAFF PRESENT Sara Edwards Ron Petrie Keith Shreve Kim Rogers Kim Hesse ACTION TAKEN Approved Forwarded Approved Approved Approved Approved Tabled MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF ABSENT Fire Chief Cheryl Zotti Bert Rakes Jim Johnson Perry Franklin • • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 14, 2001 Page 2 Ward: Good morning. Welcome to the Subdivision Committee meeting in room 111, this is Thursday June 14, 2001. We now have eight items on the agenda. The first one we are going to start off with is a new one that's been added on. It has to do with a concept of car wash on North College by Days Inn Conklin: This is an administrative item. I've been working with a developer on this. I just wanted to run that by the Subdivision Committee to get your feelings They have been working with staff and have modified their elevations. Originally they did show red endcaps on the bays that they've redone and they've modified some of their end elevations, continued the bubbles up around the Suds sign. The materials they are using, this bubble sign is going to go on a metal type material back up on here. I just want to get your opinion on this. I have Stanley Rogers here today who is the owner/developer of the car wash. Bunch: Where is it located? Conklin: Days Inn located on Township and College, it wraps around this existing gas station, Walgreen's is right across the street over here. Rogers: There's on old full service station on the property right now and it's an old Coneco station. Ward: The old Holiday Inn wraps around? Conklin: It wraps around all three sides completely. They are going to remove the old Coneco station and place this carwash there. They have worked with staff to meet our Master Street Plan, landscape and sidewalks. They have been working with staff to get all the regulations met. The only concern that I have, the Last thing that I'm trying to do before they get their permit is to approve their design relationship to Commercial Design Standards. Carwashes are always difficult, it's not your typical retail type building. Ward: The Suds Car Wash part is going to be neon lighting? Rogers: The signage is channeled letters. They are internally illuminated by neon but they are covered lighting. Ward: Basically it's an old gas station, it's going to be torn down and you are going to put a five bay carwash, two automatic and three handheld? Bunch: Are the signs on the ends lighted also or just the main marque? Subdivision Committee Meeting • June 14, 2001 Page 3 Rogers: The end signs are proposed to be lighted as well, not the graphics as far as the bubbles, they are vinyl graphics and are not illuminated. The Suds sign is the only part of the graphics. This area here is what's illuminated which there is actually an illuminated band that goes across there. The most similar thing I can think of to that would be if you've seen any of the Phillips gas stations, Lindsey Mercantile has an illuminated band on the canopy, around the center of it. I don't know if you all have ever noticed it. Conoco's canopies now have the illuminated bands on them as well. It's a similar graphic to that. It's pretty muted lighting. Hoover: Is there a separate sign? Rogers: No ma'am, on this particular location because of the sign ordinance we've tried to keep everything back on the building. Ward: Everything is totally on the building? Rogers: Yes sir. • Ward: It's different. I'm not sure what we can compare it to. Conklin: That's one of the reasons I brought it to you. This concept, they want to build more than one of these. • Rogers: For what it's worth to you, we've gone through all the registration, trade mark and stuff. The closest thing I can compare it to and the things Tim and I have discussed to try to meet all the requirements and stuff was, Tim's concern was frankly the bubble issue and trying not to overdo that. Our actual original plan has more on the side elevations and we tried to reduce that as well as try to push all of the bubbles above the fascia elevation. I guess our thought process and theory in that was simply that those graphics would be very similar to an the companies who put them on their canopies and things like that. It's Just all up on the elevation around top and not on the full buildings like it's going to be in some locations. Hoover: Can we have a sign on three sides of a building? Conklin: I have talked with our Inspections Division and it does meet our sign ordinance. The only issue was Commercial Design Standards. I have toned down their building somewhat by removing the red. I was trying to keep the colors closer together. • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 14, 2001 Page 4 Hoover: I didn't think we could have signs on three sides of the building. Conklin: Yes you can. Hoover: The other thing is, are the bubbles considered part of the signage? Conklin: Yes they are. I've talked to the Inspections Division about that and the sign ordinance says 150 square feet or 20% of the wall, whichever is greater. They are considering this building entirely the wall, including the openings. That was Bert Rakes that gave that interpretation yesterday. Ward: What's the height up to the top of the end of the bubbles? Rogers: I don't know. Ward: As long as it meets all of our sign ordinances. I haven't seen anything quite like it come through so I don't have an opinion yet. • Conklin: I can tell you, I was going to permit it if we reduced the bubbled down to about right there. That's where I was at with it because it's a concept they are trying to do and I didn't think it would be fair to try to make it look like the Days Inn. • Hoover. I think it's narrowed down that this is signage and if they already approved that this meets our sign ordinance... The whole building is the sign and if they are saying that's approved then I don't know what we can really say. I don't feel like they left us any opening. Conklin: That's what they told me. Bunch: That's pretty interesting. Conklin. I think you will be able to notice it when you drive down College Avenue. Hoover: I do think it's interesting that they count the openings as solid wall Rogers: I don't know if they referenced the fact that the floors and stuff like that are heated and stuff as opposed to a concrete slab, in this scenario all the slab and four feet outside the entire facility is all heated floors and stuff like that. I don't know if that's considered or not. Bunch: Are these vinyl bubbles raised? • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 14, 2001 Page 5 Rogers: No sir. Conklin: It's considered part of the sign. If it was paint, I don't think it would be according to Inspections but since it's vinyl they said it would be part of the sign. Ward: As far as I'm concerned as long as it meets our sign ordinance it's fine. It's a different concept. • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 14, 2001 Page 6 LS 01-17.00: Lot Split (McCarthy, pp 569) was submitted by Kim Mulchy McCarthy for property located at 4224 Huntsville Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 1.12 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 0.36 acres and 0.71 acres. Ward: Our next agenda item is LS 01-17.00 for a lot split for McCarthy submitted by Kim Mulchy McCarthy for property located at 4224 Huntsville Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 1.12 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 0.36 acres and 0.71 acres. Edwards: This property is located west of the David Lyle Subdivision and north of Huntsville Road. Currently, one single family home exists on this site. This property is zoned R-1 and is surrounded by R-1 zoning on the north, west and across Huntsville and there is R- 0 located to the east. We do have two conditions. The sidewalk shall be constructed through the driveways. Driveway approaches shall be constructed of concrete at least 12.5 feet into the property. Payment of parks fees in the amount of $470 shall be due prior to the building permit. We did recommend approval subject to those conditions. Ward: Keith, do you have anything? Keith Shreve - Sidewalk and Trails • Shreve: The basic sidewalk exists in good condition. It's incomplete where the driveways are. We are requesting that the sidewalk be constructed through the driveway. • Ward: Shreve: We are going to have concrete go back 12V2 feet off from the sidewalks onto the road. End of the property 12% feet, that protects the sidewalk from being covered with gravel with automobile use. Ward: Ron? Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie: No comments. Ward: I guess there is no Parks comments? Edwards: Not that I'm aware of. Ward: Do you have any questions about the two conditions that we put on there? McCarthy: Can we do the sidewalk when we poor the foundation? Shreve: Yes. • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 14, 2001 Page 7 Ward: All the other findings of fact as far as road frontage and utilities are all taken care of? Bunch: This is on sewer? Petrie: Yes sir. Ward: Does the applicant have any other questions? McCarthy: No. PUBLIC COMMENT: Ward: Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak about this lot split? COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: Ward: Seeing none, I'll close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. MOTION: Hoover: I'll make a motion that we approve LS 01-17.00, subject to the two conditions. Mulchy: What's the second condition, I forgot? Hoover: Payment of park fees. Bunch: I'll second. Ward: I'll concur. • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 14, 2001 Page 8 LSP 01-20.00: Lot Split (Hannan, pp 529) was submitted by Patrick Hannan for property located at 382 Jarnagan Street. The property is in the Planning Growth Area and contains approximately 11 % acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 9 1/2 acres and 2 acres. Ward: The second item on the agenda this morning is lot split 01-20.00 submitted by Patrick Hannan for property located at 382 Jamagan Street. The property is in the Planning Growth Area and contains approximately 11 1/2 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 9 % acres and 2 acres. Edwards: As you said, this property is on Jarnagan Lane, approximately 800 feet north of 'Huntsville Road. There is one single family home on this property. The applicant is dedicating the required right-of-way based upon Washington County road standards along Jarnagan Lane and that is the 60 feet wide where possible. There is a proposed Minor Arterial street located on the east side of this property. The applicant is requesting a waiver of that dedication. For a minor arterial street 90 feet of right-of-way, any waiver of dedication must be approved by City Council. Secondly, they do need to obtain Washington County approval prior to filing this lot split. We are recommending you forward this subject to that right-of-way not being dedicated. Ward: On the east side of the property is where we are talking about this waiver? • Edwards: Yes. Ward: On Jarnagan itself, it would be a street that would never go through, it looks like maybe Cunningham would connect to the north to Wyman Road one of these days? Edwards: Yes. Jarnagan is not on our Master Street Plan. Jamagan: I own the land and I'm giving it to her. I'm trying to give it to her. My name is Bob Jamagan, 375 Jarnagan Street. I've lived there for 44 years or so. • Hannan: Susan Hannan. Ward: What's your main reason for wanting to request this waiver? Jamagan: So I can give her two acres and get the family out there with us, we live out there too. That's all. Hannan: To not have to give up that portion of land. Jarnagan: I won't even consider giving someone land for free like that other than my kin folks. I see no reason to have a strip, it started out 90 foot I think and now they are down to 45 and I wouldn't even consider that. It goes from my north fence to my south fence, it doesn't go anywhere. • • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 14, 2001 Page 9 Ward. You understand the concept of what the City is going to do? Jarnagan: Yes. That was explained to me. That was a pie in the sky future type thing. Ward: Is there any sidewalk or engineering comments? Petrie: It is all in the County but is there only one home? Jarnagan: There is a second drawing here too, it shows the lane ends right in my front yard. When you get to the end of it you are going in a barn lot, car port or in the parking lot. There is a whole mess of big trees ahead of it, between it and the north fence. It looks a little different on here, on the second drawing. Petrie: It's my understanding the existing house is on a well. Will the new house that you are going to build be on the well? Hannan: We would like it to be on City water. Jarnagan: The City water is down here at the corner, at the southwest corner of the lot. Petrie: Does it come up to the property? Jarnagan: It comes to my property. Yes, it comes to the corner of her front acre out by the street. From that corner into my house there has never been a dedicated street or anything, it's Just a driveway. Hannan: It comes right to the edge of tract B. Jarnagan: Across from the back acre, one acre is out by the lane and the next acre is back at the back and across the line fence from that is a house and they are on City water now. They would be within 30 or 40 feet of her house. Petrie: Will you remain on the well? Jarnagan: I'm on a stock tank and I fill and chlorinate it and do it all. I've used the 5 gallon lugs to drink out of this big pond over here in the corner. PUBLIC COMMENT• Ward: Is there anyone in the public would like to comment on this particular issue? COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: • Ward: Seeing none, I'll close it to the public and bring it back to the Committee. My take on • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 14,2001 Page 10 this is at Subdivision Committee we are not going to make any kind of decision, we are Just going to forward it to the full Planning Commission and then even then it's going to have to go to City Council. Even if we approve it at full Planning Commission it still has to go to City Council. I guess there is Just a bunch of preliminary steps to get to the final on this waiver. You have a very valid point. Jarnagan: The street is just a little old driveway that comes up there and if it ever expands. Ward: Everything else is approvable here at this level except this waiver not to give this dedication of right-of-way. Do you have any other questions? Bunch: Where it says north 209 there is a 15 foot dimension there next to the 20 foot utility easement, is that road right-of-way? Jamagan: The road is only about 14 feet wide there. Bunch: It wasn't called out in the drawing. Jamagan: The 20 foot would take my carport, garden, front of my barn and so on. Bunch: I was talking about down in here. This 15 feet right here. Jamagan: You can have all that. Hoover: The only thing I was wondering if staff could include a map of the Master Street Plan of what it's supposed to be. Edwards: Sure. Hoover: I'm sure there are alternate places for it. MOTION: Bunch: I'll move that we forward LSD 01-20.00 to the full Planning Commission. Hoover: I'll second. Ward: I'll concur. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 14, 2001 Page 11 LSP 01-21.00: Lot Split (Habitat for Humanity, pp 561) was submitted by Patsy Brewer on behalf of Habitat for Humanity for property owned by Arnold & Margaret Christie located at the northwest corner of Hill Avenue and Eleventh Street. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 1.09 acres. The request is to split into three tracts of 0.33 acres, 0.30 acres & 0.41 acres. Ward: Item number three is a lot split for Habitat for Humanity submitted by Patsy Brewer on behalf of Habitat for Humanity for property owned by Arnold & Margaret Christie located at the northwest corner of Hill Avenue and Eleventh Street. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 1.09 acres. The request is to split into three tracts of 0 33 acres, 0.30 acres & 0.41 acres. Edwards: This property is zoned R-2 surrounded by R-2 zoning, however the land use surrounding this is single family residential. There is some floodplain on this property and we have had some concerns about removing trees in this area causing erosion and would like to discuss that with the applicant as far as their plans on that. We are recommending approval subject to some conditions. A grading and floodplain permit must be obtained prior to any grading in the floodplain. An elevation certificate will be required with building permits. Repair to damaged areas of sidewalk will be required at the time of building permit. If existing curb cut is not used the driveway shall be removed and sidewalk replaced. Sidewalks will be required through all new drives. Ward: Is the applicant here? McWethy: My name is Mac McWethy, a volunteer for Habitat. We are agreeable to all three of these conditions. Ward: Let's go through City staff and see if there are any other comments or things we need to talk about. Sidewalks? Keith Shreve - Sidewalks and Trails Shreve: Sara covered it. Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie: Do you plan on doing any grading in the floodplain? McWethy: I'm not aware of any. As you know there is vegetation along the creek side but there are large flat areas that are not in the floodplain that are not buildable lot size. Petrie: I'm assuming this flood line shown on the plan is accurate. Unless you've got a clear designation on this plat where that findings is. Don't be removing any vegetation or doing any grading past that line unless you have some additional permits. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 14, 2001 Page 12 McWethy: Petrie: McWethy: Petrie: Edwards. McWethy: Edwards: McWethy: Ward: Hesse: One clarification, removing vegetation, can we cut out the honeysuckle and poison ivy? I'm talking about trees. My only other comment is, you guys have piled up a lot of brush and it's sitting right there on the corner where you come up on that and you cannot see around it. I ask for that to be removed as soon as possible. I was not aware of that, I'll take care of it. I appreciate that. I do have one question. The trees that you've removed already, are you finished with that or are there more coming down? I don't know the answer to that question. I've been working on a different site. I'll find out. I'm assuming they are probably finished. Could you call me and let me know please? Sure. Kim, did you have anything on this particular site? No. PUBLIC COMMENT: Ward: Smith: Ward: McWethy: Is there anyone in the public that would like to address this issue My name is Rebecca Smith. I live on Hill Street. The concern is the lot is kind of small and narrow. I don't know if we can see a description or how it's going to look. It just seems really small for the three houses compared to the neighborhood. Also, all the trees is a big concern. All these lots do meet our City ordinances as far as being 75 foot wide and most of these lots look like they go back, one is 193 feet, 161 feet, they are good sized lots. The big problem would be 100 year floodplain, building the houses in front of all that with all the setbacks. They do meet all the city requirements as far as I can see. Do you have anything further? Typically the homes are approximately 24 by 48 feet, 1,000 to 1,100 square feet, 3 bedroom 2 bath. They are simple. It's my understanding that the first one, which would be on tract one or the northernmost will be oriented to face south and the other two, because the lots are a little bit wider, will be oriented to face Hill Street with setbacks that meet City requirements as well as consistent with the rest of the homes in the area. • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 14, 2001 Page 13 Ward: We'll be happy to provide you a plat if you would like. McWethy: We are finishing up a house at 519 Sherman Street if you would like to come out. Smith: I've seen the one on Mill in Springdale. McWethy: That's the same type. Smith: I'm very for Habitat. Ward: Is there any other questions? Wisenhunt: I have a couple of things. You said there is one house is going to face south at the corner of 11th, is that right? McWethy: No ma'am. There are three tracts, the northernmost, it's my understanding, the northernmost would. Wisenhunt: It will face sideways to the street? • McWethy: That's my understanding. Wisenhunt: How far away from the street are these going to be? McWethy: The City is requiring a minimum of 25 feet setback. To be consistent with the rest of the homes, I think we are talking about 30 feet setback. Wisenhunt: How much space are they going to have between the tree line of the trees that have to remain on the creek side? I'm trying to get a picture of how big these yards is going to be compared. McWethy: It says 20 foot utility easement and building setback line. I would eyeball it and say the house where the word "setback line", that would probably be about the western edge of the house. Smith: McWethy: Where the flood line is, is that where you cut down the trees, past that or in front of that line? They have cut out the brush to the creek line. It's been within this 100 year floodplain. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: • Ward: Anyone else? I'll close it to the public and bring it back to the Committee. • • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 14, 2001 Page 14 Hoover: Have you thought about where the construction trailer is going to sit? McWethy: I think the intent is to place it on tract three because that would be the last one we build the house on. Hoover: So it will not sit in the street at any time? McWethy: No. Hoover: What about construction debris? McWethy: They have a trailer which all of our construction debris and typically extraneous from the neighborhood ends up in and they haul it to the landfill or wherever. Hoover: Will that sit on the street or on the side? I just ask this because in the past they have been in the street. The other issue is parking for volunteers. Have you worked that out with the neighbors because it will affect the neighborhood during construction? McWethy: We have two days a week that there are volunteers. Saturday is the larger number are there and I don't know any alternative but parking along the side of the street. On Wednesday it's a much smaller crew. Hoover: I think it would be a nice idea if you could get together with the neighbors and just work it out or maybe one side of the street. How long do you think it's going to take build the three sites? McWethy: I don't know. Hoover: I can see that going two or three years and that's a lot of activity there. In the past, on Sherman, that went on for a couple of years. That did affect the neighbors. I just think it would be a good idea to get with the neighbors up front and talk about parking, have them aware of when the people come and how you are going to try to direct people so that they are not angry. McWethy: Okay. Ward: We all know these are all fantastic projects for the neighborhood and the City as a whole and for people who are fortunate enough to qualify. McWethy: I am very sold on this Habitat for Humanity is the closest that we have today to the old barn -raising and it extends the idea that to be someone's neighbor you don't have to live right next door to them. • Ward: It's a great project. I think Sharon has been on the board before. It's pretty important to • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 14, 2001 Page 15 MOTION: Bunch: Hoover: McWethy: Bunch: Hoover: Ward: McWethy: • Ward: • all of us. I'll make a motion to approve LSD 01-21.00 at this level. I'll second. I just want to be sure there is nothing in the street. If it's in the street it will be contrary to what I've been told and contrary to what I'm going to tell them. I'll amend my motion to include nothing in the street and also that the intersection on 11 " and Hill Street whatever is placed on tract three is placed far enough back to maintain visibility around the corner so it doesn't produce any traffic hazards. I'II second. I'll concur. For the public who is the best person for them to talk to? Patsy Brewer, 575-9696. If you have anymore questions about Habitat program, we sure would like to keep everybody involved with it because it is a great project for the whole community and most of the people who are involved with it are volunteers. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 14, 2001 Page 16 FP 01-5.00: Final Plat (Stonewood Subdivision, pp 60) was submitted by Glenn Carter of Carter & Associates, PA on behalf of Dunnerstock Development for property located at 4786 N. Crossover Road. The property is zoned R -0/R-1, Residential Office/Low Density Residential and contains approximately 57.23 acres with 119 lots proposed. Ward: The next item on our agenda this morning is final plat 01-5.00 for Stonewood Subdivision submitted by Glenn Carter of Carter & Associates, PA on behalf of Dunnerstock Development for property located at 4786 N. Crossover Road. The property is zoned R -0/R-1, Residential Office/Low Density Residential and contains approximately 57.23 acres with 119 lots proposed. Edwards: This was approved as preliminary plat on July 12, 1999. This is on the west side of Crossover about 1,200 feet north of the intersection of Zion and Crossover. There is floodplain existing on the southwest corner of this property. Anytime there are at least 50 lots or 5 acres of a subdivision, the applicant is required to complete a floodplain study if one has not already been done and this is the case in this area, which they have done. However, it has not been submitted to FEMA to change our official maps. As a condition, I would like to recommend that lots 1, 2, 80, 119, 117, 114, 85, 86 and 87, which are all in the floodplain, not be issued a permit until we do get that study submitted and approved by FEMA. That is just to ensure that the study does get submitted. Second condition, all common areas shall be maintained by the property owner's association and shall not be sold or developed in a manner that is not for recreational purposes. I don't want to see this adjusted onto a lot and a house built. A pool house or pool would be fine for a common benefit but we don't want to see this open space sold for a home site. Ward: Should this be put on the final plat Edwards: Yes. Ward: Also, put in the covenants? Edwards: Do you have covenants? Carter: Not today but there will be. Ward: If there will be covenants, I would like to see those put in the covenants and also put on the final plat something saying that the common areas will be maintained by the property owner's association. Edwards: Sewer capacity is not guaranteed. We do have a new form that we are adding to all our applications so they are aware that sewer capacity may not be available. I did make it a condition that we get that signed so everyone is aware. The building setback line on lots 1 and 2 are zoned R-0 needs to be changed to 50 feet along Hearthstone Drive. • • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 14, 2001 Page 17 Edwards: You changed it up along here but not over here. Ward: Is that all? Edwards. That is it from planning. Ward: Keith? Keith Shreve - Sidewalk and Trails Shreve: No comments. Everything looks good. Ward: Ron? Ron Petrie- Staff Eneineer Petrie: I think one thing that wasn't on the list is, there is a $4,300 fee for your SCADA system for your lift station. Ward: When is that payable? Petrie: Before we sign the final plat. We need a warranty deed for the lift station area. I ask that you add some benchmarks to the plat. You've got finished flood elevations on several of these Tots and we need something to go off of. This area back to the east, if you can also label that common area. We've got the floodplain but the one thing we need to add is the water surface elevations on the floodplain. Ward: What do you mean by that? Petrie: It's to actually show what the elevation of the water will be. Edwards: The base flood elevations? Petrie: Yes. The ones they computed. Ward: It's my understanding that something has changed and the new FEMA guidelines are different than the ones we were going on. Petrie: This was a zone A which means there is not a detailed study. They were required to do a detailed study to establish elevations for the flood. That's what we are asking. Ward: How hard is it for them to get the final approved from FEMA so they can start doing something on these six or eight lots? • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 14, 2001 Page 18 Edwards. Carter: Ward: Edwards. Carter: Edwards: Ward: Edwards: Carter: Petrie: Edwards: Ward: Carter: Ward: Tom Hecox who is submitting that for them, said about 3 months. It's that and it's probably going to run $5,000 or $6,000 or more. Also, it wasn't required at preliminary plat. All that was required at preliminary plat was that we do the study. We did the study and we did exactly what we were told to do at that point and now when we submitted final plat we were told we have to submit to FEMA which was not the original approval comments from the Planning Commission. We agreed to change the lot configuration to get this approved and then later do a lot split. This would be on which lots, 119 and 117? Yes. 114, 117, 119 and 80. We've had a disagreement all along. We think it's clear in the minutes this was required and they don't. We've tried to reach a compromise here by going ahead and accepting the final plat and letting it process and putting this limitation so that at least all the remaining lots are able to be built on. We've tried to reach a compromise on that. What's the access for these R-0 lots along 265? They are all on Shadow Wood Avenue. I think we've got access to lot 1 and 14 prohibited from Highway 265 on the final. Do you have a copy of the minutes that show we are required to do a FEMA submittal? It would probably clear that matter up. The copy of the minutes that I got didn't state that. We don't want to raise a lot of problem over it we dust feel like to require that at the last minute. I can go get my file but we dealt with this issue several times before we approved the construction plans, we dealt with it at that time that this was going to have to be required. I can go get that. I think what we should do, if this is going to be a point of contention, we should dust forward it to the Planning Commission and work it out between now and then. This is the plat review minutes it pretty much says you need to submit it to FEMA. If it's that clear and I don't have a copy of it then I don't see any need in taking Planning Commission's time. We'll just forgo that. My feeling is if you can show that it's not really required at the preliminary plat approval, I think we can go along with what was first required. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 14, 2001 Page 19 Edwards: Do you have some specific projects that are planned right now? Carter: No. Ward: We'll try to work with you if we can. Petrie: Just some clarifications on the plat. These arejust some general clarifications. If you can label this easement right there. The easement between 114 and 117, those need to be labeled exactly what they are. They arejust building setbacks and I think they are supposed to be utility easements also there and there, the west of 83 and to the north of 82 Label the easements in the common areas we need a little additional easement on the east side of lot 15, the sewer line that's across that lot, 10 feet from the sewer line. Between Tots 3 and 77 we had this drainage ditch, I thought we had discussed, we are going to have a drainage easement on the west side and utility easement on the east, we have that concrete ditch on the west side. Carter: Petrie: Carter: Petrie: 10 or 20 foot utility easement on the east? I'll have to go back and see what they wanted. We would be glad to do that. I guess when we did our final plat we forgot about your comments. Between lots 76 and 77, this easement between lots 67 and 68 if you can label those, give the widths and between Tots 55 and 56. Where is the easement? You need to dimension it from a line or something because that could be anywhere. Carter: I understand. Petrie: The same with 47 and 48. To the west of lot 36, that needs to be a drainage easement too. On one of these residential streets where you are only going to have 40 foot of right- of-way, you got it called out on one place. I think you need to label that on the other streets so it's clear that that street is not centered in that right-of-way. This area where the lift station is, do we need a separate lot number on that? That's actually going to be owned by the City of Fayetteville. Carter: Do we need to deed this to you? Edwards: I think that would be a good idea. Ward: I don't know why you would need a lot number. Petrie: I would add something on the plat, what this is. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 14, 2001 Page 20 Carter: We could do a fine hatch and a label to say that's City property. Bunch: That greenspace wedge, where the force main line goes across it. Petrie: That's right, to me that's not really greenspace, it's going to be City. Ward: It's going to be a lift station. Carter: Would it work if we Just hatch that and label it city property? Petrie: We would prefer if you would reduce that some, we really don't want all that. It's Just more for us to have to maintain. Ward: You want to make lots 1 and 119 bigger? Bunch: Carter: Edwards: Carter: Edwards- Bunch: dwardsBunch: Petrie: I think the problem there would be accessing lot 119 off of 265, it needs to be clear. That was a comment about lot 14 and lot 1. You want to add 119 to that? 1 thought we already did. You've got the access on 1 and 14, he Just wants you to add lot 119 to that. Since there is a driveway up through the lift station, it would be real easy to cut across. That's all I have Edwards- Kim Hesse had to leave but she asked me to request this. The tree preservation areas are within these common areas and so she would like for you to label "common area" and "tree preservation area", at least on these two and part of this northern one. That way, before anything could be done, it will have to get her approval. Carter: What part of this area up here. Edwards: She said she thought it was this area, the lower part. Carter: Just pick out some line there? Edwards: You should have had a tree preservation plan with preliminary plat. Carter: That line is defined there? • • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 14, 2001 Page 21 Edwards: Yes. Ward: Tell me about this retaining wall that they are putting up between the R-0 lots and residential. Petrie: It's not a retaining wall, it's a fence. Ward: Some of the notes already in here that I didn't see like you've got a lot on the plat that all common areas shall be maintained by the POA, that's already in there. Some of the things we are requiring you to do are already in here. Petrie: Are you referring to this note number three? This is a standard note we are starting to require due to some complaints with some of the home buildings. They worry about the grade last and then they come in and put a retaining wall right up against a side wall or right on top of our waterline. We've had some problems. We need to kind of note to cover ourselves on that. Ward: Is that all you can see Ron? We've already done Kim's part. What about park fees, they've been paid I guess? Rogers: Yes, they have. PUBLIC COMMENT: Ward: I'll go ahead and open it up to the public. Does anyone want to make a comment on the final plat of Stonewood? COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: Ward: Seeing none, I'll close it to the public and bring it back to the Committee. I guess one thing you make sure you get all these different easements between the lots because it's been easy to miss one or two of those while we are running through them this morning. Carter: 1 think I've got them all noted on here. If you wouldn't mind, I'll run a copy up to you before I do the final. Petrie: Okay. Carter: I'm not opposed to adding some if we missed something else. Ward. How close are the roads and everything being done? Carter: All the paving is done. We had our final inspection and we are taking care of our punch • list items right now. They are pretty minor items. Apparently the guy that was doing the • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 14, 2001 Page 22 drainage boxes was not through grouting, so a whole lot of our comments were grouting the insides of the boxes. There is one little piece of pavement right down here on this end, there is a problem with a curve that we are trying to resolve right now and get that paved. That's basically it, clean up. Ward: Once this final plat is signed by everybody you can start closing on lots, is that when it happens? You think you will have it ready to go by next Friday or how soon? Carter: Ward: Bunch: I think we probably would. Any questions or comments from the Committee? One question on this 100 foot utility and drainage easement where that major power line cuts across, is that was Ron's comments were on labeling that as common area? Petrie: Right. Bunch: Will that be maintained by the utility companies or by the property owners association? Ward: It says "all common areas shall be maintained by the POA. Petrie: A lot of these will actually say those easements are part of the Tots. The homeowner's actually make it part of their lots and maintain it. Ward: I'm looking for a motion. Bunch: This question about condition number one, I want to clarify that before I make a motion. Ward: My feeling was is that if it was approved on preliminary plat without the final approval of FEMA, if it was, I think Ron is pretty adamant that it wasn't according to what he thinks the notes are, since there is eight lots they will have to be approved by FEMA before they can be sold or built on. Bunch: In order to approve it at this level, do you concur with the conditions of number one rather than going to full Planning Commission to resolve any differences, if you say it's okay to do it this way and move on? Carter: Yes, I do. MOTION: Bunch: With that being said, I'll move that we approve final plat 01-5.00 at this level, subject to the comments from Ron and Kim and adding lot 119 to prohibition of access from 265 to lots 1 and 14. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 14,2001 Page 23 Hoover: Bunch: I'll second. I'll concur. • • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 14, 2001 Page 24 LSD 01-11.00: Large Scale Development (Elder Apt., pp 403) was submitted by Engineering Services, Inc. on behalf of Elder Construction for property owned by Thomas & Jeannine Vernon located at Lot 5 University Acres (Lewis Avenue). The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 3 97 acres with a 64 unit apartment complex proposed. Ward: The next item on the agenda this morning is LSD 01-11.00 a large scale development for Elder submitted by Engineering Services, Inc. on behalf of Elder Construction for property owned by Thomas & Jeannine Vernon located at Lot 5 University Acres (Lewis Avenue). The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 3.97 acres with a 64 unit apartment complex proposed. Sara Edwards - Associate Planner Edwards: This property, if you remember the Lewis Street Town Homes, are about two properties to the north of this and this is directly across from the City Soccer Fields. They do have seven apartment buildings with 62 two bedroom units and they are providing their required 124 parking spaces. We are recommending approval at this level. They are not asking for any waivers or variances. Typically, Planning Commission is required to determine required street improvement and, I believe I'm correct in saying that the applicant is proposing to widen Lewis Avenue to 14 feet from centerline with curb and gutter and staff is in support of that proposal. Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie: Including storm pipe, no open ditch will be our recommendation. Ward: Keith, do you have anything on this particular large scale development? Keith Shreve - Sidewalk and Trails Shreve: His proposals meet our requirements. Ward: Ron, any more comments? Petrie: In regards to this detention pond, the way it was drawn, it would require a waiver in setbacks requirements from the buildings to your highest elevation of ponding. I think you can make up that volume back to the south, there seems to be a large area, I'm not sure if there is something proposed in that area or not but it looks like you can change that Just a little bit to avoid having to get that waiver. Ward: There has to be a 20 foot setback to the nearest part of the construction of the building to the pond, right? • Petrie: Yes. To the 100 year water surface elevation. We would just request that small revision • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 14, 2001 Page 25 to avoid that waiver. Kim Rogers - Parks Operation Coordinator Rogers: Park fees haven't been paid, $24,000. PUBLIC COMMENT: Ward: I will go ahead and open this up to the public. Does anybody have public comment on this particular apartment complex? COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: Ward: Seeing none, I'll close it to the public and bring it back to the applicant. Do you understand what we are talking about as far as the detention pond? Wier: Yes, I do. Ward: You understand about the storm pipe when you put the road in? Wier: Yes. There is one shown in there, it kind of gets lost in the sidewalk and trees and everything else that's shown. Ward: It looks like these have the bike racks put in. Where are they putting their trash? Edwards: I would like to call your attention, Kim couldn't be here but she did write a memo and I've handed that out. Ward: It looks like Kim is pretty much in agreement with what's being asked to be done. Go back over the site coverage was 44% of the site, on the tree canopy preserved was a little over half an acre of land, which is 14.2% and what's going to be replaced is .275 acres with about 6.9% of tree canopy replaced, which gets us up to 21.2%. What's required 20%? Edwards: Yes. Ward: It looks like there are a lot large oak trees, locust trees, elm trees on the back are being saved. Bunch: On the number of apartments, it calls out 64. Wier: The original submittal was 64 and we have reduced that to 62 to meet certain design expectations. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 14, 2001 Page 26 Bunch: I'm only counting 60 unless you have, this looks like a double unit handicapped accessible, is there a second story? Wier: There is actually six apartments. Bunch: This is showing it as five. It's showing this as one story. There is another unit up on the second floor? Moore: I believe so. Bunch: Also, the same thing here. Wier: Those are identical. Bunch: You are not showing any stairways or anything for access to the second floor. All this is being shown, all the stairways to all these other units look to be townhouses with interior stairways but there is no calling out of stairways to the second story. Wier: There are 62 units, we do know that much. We'll make sure there is access to the second floor. Bunch: I would like to have that on the record. Wier: I brought a floor plan of the regular apartments but I don't believe I have the handicapped floor plan. Bunch: Wier: Bunch: Wier: Bunch: Wier. Bunch: Wier: I am assuming this handicapped are these two large ones on the first floor. Yes. What type of trees are these that are being shown? You are showing two in the detention pond and some around the rest of that. Those are pin oaks. Pin oaks in the detention pond also? The Parks Board had requested we provide a tree buffer between the school and the complex which is why I proposed replanting trees as far down that line as we could. All these represented by the same symbol are all pin oaks? Yes. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 14, 2001 Page 27 Bunch: Sanitary sewer on the east end is going through the middle of a tree area? Wier: That's existing. Bunch: On your revised tree preservation plan, it looks like a change condition on the easement line for tree preservation in this area right here, it shows you have a tree and stopping it right here. Wier. Bunch: Wier. Bunch: Wier: Bunch: It goes back behind this building. That wasn't clear because you changed convention on your symbols. Is this the tree preservation area here? We can fix that. It actually goes up and follows the utility easement on the front of the property, until we hit the end of that front area. Do you anticipate any utility work in the front tree preservation area, the one that borders Lewis Street. I think what's there is pretty much there. The question I had, the tree preservation area a lot of times you lose it when the utilities go in. Edwards- We've stopped letting them count those areas in utility easements. Ward: Is this place right by the soccer fields? Wier: The soccer fields are across the street on the east side and Asbell School and a park too, on the south side. Bunch: There is an apartment complex immediately to the north of it. It's a wooded lot that sits in between. MOTION: Hoover: I'll make a motion to approve LSD 01-11.00 subject to staff comments. Bunch: The reconfiguration of the detention pond to comply with setbacks and the storm pipe in lieu of open ditch on Lewis and some housekeeping clarifying the record on the number of apartments and that sort of thing. I'll second. Ward: I'll concur. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 14, 2001 Page 28 LSD 01-18.00: Large Scale Development (City of Fayetteville, Skate Park, pp 562) was submitted by Eric Schuldt for the City of Fayetteville Parks & Recreation Division for property located in Walker Park atl5th Street & S. College Avenue. The property is zoned P-1, Institutional and contains approximately 2.46 acres. The request is for a new skateboard park. Ward: The next item on the agenda is LSD 01-18.00 City of Fayetteville Skate Park submitted by Eric Schuldt for the City of Fayetteville Parks & Recreation Division for property located in Walker Park atl5th Street & S. College Avenue. The property is zoned P-1, Institutional and contains approximately 2.46 acres. The request is for a new skateboard park. Sara Edwards - Associate Planner Edwards: They met with us early on and actually did not have any revisions from plat review so we have no conditions. I'll let Eric tell you about it, if he wants to. Ward: We haven't seen this particular plan so, go ahead and talk to us a little bit about it Eric. Schuldt: Eric Schuldt, Parks Department. I would like to start off by saying a subcommittee has been established for quite a while on this project. They went through a selection process as far as the site, they held a public meeting on-site with the Parks Board to approve the site for this particular facility. City Council approved and we budgeted money to bring in a firm from California to work with citizens and skaters to design a skate park. We had three meetings, two meetings at the Genesis Lab and one at City Hall with the consultant, who on their team has a skateboarder, it's a different language that's spoken as far as building one of these things. They worked hand in hand with the skaters. Approximately 30 to 40 skaters attended each of the meetings so we had good public input on the design. This is basically the design we came up with. Ward: Who is going to pay for this, the Parks Department? Schuldt: There is currently $187,000 allocated for the skate park, for construction. We are looking to get a grant to fund the rest of it. There is also a fund-raising committee made up of skaters and citizens that are working on that. Ward: This is strictly for skateboarders and in-line skates? Schuldt: Correct. It is located next to the BMX track. Ward: Have you talked about any kind of ordinance about getting the skateboarders and in-line skaters off the other City properties and church parking lots, like we had people complaining about the other night? Edwards. Not that I'm aware of. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 14, 2001 Page 29 Ward: They are tearing up all kinds of stuff down at the Walton Arts Center and places like that. They don't have a place to go now but once we get these things built, I think that's something I would like to look into. Since this is a City project, Ron or Keith, nobody really has any comments on this? Keith Shreve - Sidewalk and Trails Shreve: No comment. Ron Petrie - Staff En¢ineer Petrie: No comment. PUBLIC COMMENT: Ward: Is there anyone in the public that would like to address us on the skateboard park? COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: Ward: Seeing none, I'II close it to the public and bring it back to the Committee. Bunch: The question I have, as close a proximity as it is to the BMX track which is dirt, what problems are you going to have with dust? Are these concrete surfaces? Schuldt: Yes. Bunch: What sort of problems is that going to cause with being able to skate right next to an area that is generating a tremendous amount of dust, causing problems with traction on surfaces? Schuldt: That is something we would have to address if that became a concern after it's built. Bunch: Before it's built, ask that question because there is space to shift it so you don't have it right next to a major dust producing area that can cause problems. We are looking a considerable liability with kids out there sliding sideways when they are not supposed to be sliding. Schuldt: That's what they are there for. Bunch: Why create a problem on the front end, when we know better? Schuldt: I know to create more separation we would have to move it to the south. There is a soccer field within semi -close proximity to that boundary also. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 14, 2001 Page 30 Bunch: Can we look at some sort of landscape barrier? Both of those areas are in a wide open area. Something like a hedge or something to help. Schuldt: One of the things that was brought up in our public meetings was, a lot of these type of facilities like to provide some type of spectator seating. We didn't actually put it in this plan but, one of the proposals was, we might want to consider a berm here in between the two that can serve a dual purpose to make separation between the two facilities and provide a place to sit and watch over both areas. Bunch: Our prevailing winds are primarily out of the southwest, that would help to take the airborne dust from the BMX track to the north away from this. If you use a berm, you would be able to view both sides, that would be good but something to separate or hedges or berm or something. That's a lot of dust generated by BMX if it's used. Ward: How are we going to keep the kids with bikes from getting over on this side? Schuldt: That has been discussed and the recommendation right now is do it with signage. There are specific signs, I've been working with the City Attorney on what we need to put as far as our liability and as far as that interaction between those two. Ward: What about lights down there? Schuldt: There are no plans on this to light it but I'm not sure, we could potentially light it in the future. Ward: Later on if they are going to have competition they will probably need the Tight. Jones: Carol Jones, McClelland Engineering. We have not, on this plan, provided any or shown any conduit for lights. I think one thought would be to bring some overhead pole lights. Bunch: What about some sort of wash down to be ready for dust problems. Is there any water in this area? Schuldt: BMX has a water hookup. They water down before they race. Jones: All of the drainage, it's all piping going back to that creek. There is a floor drain in the center of that bowl and there is wall drains which is mainly to collect storm water but if you did go in there and wash it down, it would be able to drain out. This is all sized for it. Bunch: I saw the drain but I wanted to make sure we had water there available to wash it down because if you have a practice session and with BMX going there is going to be dust. The way all these things are sloped, they should dry pretty rapidly. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 14, 2001 Page 31 Ward: Is this something that can be locked up or closed down? Schuldt: The recommendation was not to fence it if at all possible. Ward: I haven't been in on any of this. Any other questions? Bunch: How do we put something in there about the berm or the separation between the BMX area and this because if we do put one in just for spectators it needs to be to hold the City to the same standard that we hold everyone else, it needs to be called out. Schuldt: Could you give us the option to use either landscaping or berm? Ward: Yes. Bunch: "And/or separation". Ward: They do water down that BMX track. MOTION: Bunch: On daily practice the kids are out there, I was out there yesterday and it was pretty dusty. I'll move that we approve LSD 01-18.00, at this level, with provision to be determined at a later date for separation by landscaping, berm or possibly repositioning to create some separation between the BMX park and the skate park. Hoover: Ward: I'll second. I'll concur. Subdivision Committee Meeting June 14, 2001 Page 32 LSD 01-19.00: Large Scale Development (Hometown Developments, pp 524) was submitted by Robert Schmitt of Hometown Developments for property located on the southwest comer of Fletcher Avenue & Rodgers Drive. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 0.50 acres with 6 dwelling units proposed. Ward: The last item on our agenda is LSD 01-19.00 Hometown Developments submitted by Robert Schmitt of Hometown Developments for property located on the southwest corner of Fletcher Avenue & Rodgers Drive. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 0.50 acres with 6 dwelling units proposed. Edwards. First, I am handing out Kim's comments. This property was before the Planning Commission on April 23', with a request to not provide the required street frontage for lots in an R-2 zone. The right-of-way for Center Street exists directly in front of this property, it runs parallel with Fletcher. The Planning Commission granted approval not to build Center Street contingent upon this property and the lot to the east going through large scale development. That's what we are seeing today. The applicant is proposing to provide 6 units with 4 bedrooms each. There is property zoned R-2 to the east, west and south of this project. It is currently zoned R-2 and this type of density is permitted in an R-2 zone. We are recommending that you forward this to the full Planning Commission. I still have some parking issues. The applicant is counting parking both in the garage and striped parking out in front for a total of 25, 10 being in the garages. The maximum allowed is 24. I would like to see one space removed and the outside parking spaces numbered so that I can tell which ones are spaces and which are landscaped area. All parking lots must be at least five feet off the side property lien. I'm measuring it and I don't get five feet. If there is five feet and I'm in error, please dimension it or else we need to move it. Dumpster and utility equipment shall all be screened. There are some other comments from staff. Keith Shreve - Sidewalk and Trails Shreve: We are requesting a six foot sidewalk along the frontage on Fletcher Avenue. Schmitt: What about the trees that have to be removed for that sidewalk, has Kim had a chance to look at those? Shreve: Not to my knowledge. Traditionally we try to go around the trees if possible. We try to save all we can. We can work with the greenspace width to move the sidewalk and go around the trees. • • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 14, 2001 Page 33 Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie: The water meters, the way you've got them shown, can you move those back up to the waterline edge and put them on the right-of-way? I would prefer they be separately connected. It would be one line unless you want to make a public line coming down into this site. There is a 20 foot setback requirement from detention ponds to build, this does not meet it. This is 4.1 feet. Do we have a letter or anything requesting these waivers? Carter: Yes. Petrie: Is there any reason given? Schmitt: What is the purpose of that ordinance? Petrie: I was here when it was written. It says "In no cases, shall the limit to the maximum pond elevation be closer than 20 feet horizontal from any building." I don't know why. I can't give you the exact details. Schmitt: You are actually 8.6 feet from the building so there is a 12 foot difference. This is an overhang. We would like to know an interpretation of that ordinance, what the purpose of it is. There has to be a reason that they have that and we would like to know what it is so that we can consider that in reference to the waiver that we requested. Petrie: Carter: Petrie: The only thing I can tell you is my guess, it has to do with two things, one thing is public safety and having dwelling units close to a place that's going to flood whenever it rains and the other thing is for structural reasons and the water sitting in places close to the building. That's the only two reasons. The other thing on the detention pond, the number I've got don't work. You are still increasing the flows on 10 and 25 year storms, doubling the flow. I don't have that report with me. I'm not sure what you are talking about. The reservoir printed out for the 100 year but didn't print out for the other years to show up. It does a separate reservoir for each storm. I just need to rerun that. My recommendation is going to be, if this doesn't fit here, we need to see it back here. You are going to have to reconfigure something to work, we've already got a waiver request. • • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 14, 2001 Page 34 Carter: I think it does fit, I just didn't get a run on those two hydro graphs there. Those two just didn't print? Is it the 2, 5 10 and 100 or is it the 10 and 25? Petrie: The 10 and 25. Carter: They work, I don't know why they didn't print. Petrie: I printed out the number, are you saying the number is wrong? Carter: That number is wrong, yes. Petrie: Before we can take it to the Planning Commission we need to see those numbers. Also, you've got this retaining wall a foot off the property line, we have a five foot setback requirement there. Carter: I think we can deal with that. It's needs to be five feet off the line? Petrie: Yes. Hoover: Where is that retaining wall? Petrie: Along that west property line. You see the property line, dot and two dashes and the solid line right behind it. I don't think it's even labeled. You have to guess by the contours. How would that change your configuration to make that work? Carter: It won't. We'll just have to scoot over. The reason we have room is because we initially had three story and there won't be three stories. That let's us up from the height restriction so we can scoot back over. We'll have room there. Petrie: The other things, are we going to discuss Center Street construction? Where are we at on that? Edwards. What the applicant is choosing to do is, have Planning Commission hear this and in the event this is denied, have them also hear waivers for the construction of Center Street, it cannot meet all of our minimum street standards. Would you like to ask any questions about that, I notice Janet did include the plat for that construction in the packet? My intention was just to let it go to Planning Commission but if you would like to discuss it, we can. • Petrie: What I was needing to do was review this and find out how many waivers were Subdivision Committee Meeting • June 14, 2001 Page 35 • required to build Center Street and I came up with five. I don't know if you want me to go over those now? Ward: Why don't you because I haven't had time to study this at all Petrie. The first waiver is from section 3-2, what we have is termed that K value and that's basically how tight vertical curves are to make sure there is no steep transitions. There is a limit on how grades can come into curves and how smooth your vertical curves are on streets. It has a requirement for 20 for crest then come over crest and then 30 for sags, the two that are being proposed are zero. We can't recommend that one. The next one is section 3-3, requires the maximum grade within 100 feet of an intersection shall be 4% for hilly terrain, they are proposing 9.91%. With the way this intersection is configured, we couldn't recommend you do that. The next one, section 3-3, the minimum angle of street centerline intersection shall be 75°, which means it's the way two streets come in to one another, the angles of intersection. There is a requirement that the minimum angle be 75°. Typically they are 90° and you can configure it 75° and still meet the requirements. They are proposing 15°. Of course there is no way you can make that corner there. We couldn't recommend you do that. Next is from 3-3, the required distance from street intersections, local streets is 150 feet offset from one intersection to the next. You have another intersection just to the east, the distance is 50 feet from Oklahoma Way and it doesn't meet that requirement. The next one, from 3-3, the maximum grade for local streets shall be 10% with provision for 15% grade for a maximum distance of 300 feet in case of hilly terrain. They are proposing a grade of 32%. We do have a letter. Your only comments are "due to existing conditions". Do you want to go over this letter? Schmitt: I wanted to see if I could give you guys some comments on why we are in the situation we are in having to have the two different options here. When I originally purchased these lots, these are two free -platted R-2 lots that exist in City records. Center Street, where it sits, the way the angle of the intersection and all that was already pre -platted so we are dealing with what the City handed us on that. In our original meeting with Rick Osbome, Kit Williams, Tim Conklin and I, we sat down and looked at this and realized that there was an issue of frontage here that nobody really thought that there was originally. Nobody realized that Center Street was there, everybody thought these all fronted on Fletcher. They were like "Yes, you have the right to develop your property under existing guidelines and under existing regulations but we have to deal with this issue of frontage." We didn't want to build the street either. We thought that putting a street in there was a bad idea because of all of the things that he just mentioned. • • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 14, 2001 Page 36 Carter: What they suggested originally was "You need to get a waiver from the Planning Commission to come in here and access it across the Center Street area and you need to talk with Kim Hesse and find out what she wants to do with plants along that City owned area and they want some kind of guarantee on how we are going to take care of that." We agreed to that. About a week later, when we applied to go see the Planning Commission on this, they informed us that also a condition of the waiver, something that we had never discussed in the meeting was that they wanted us to go through large scale development. That' where all the confusion started to come in on this project. Just to give you some background, we have spent the money to give you both options so that you can decide which best suits the City and best addressed my right to develop my property. That's kind of where we are. I just didn't want to get confused with all the side issues on the different variances that we need. We are just trying to give you both of our options. All I would add is just, I can go over each of these individually but we are going to keep coming back to the same thing. You take the City street standards and you try to plot it down on an existing right-of-way, in an existing part of town, where Oklahoma Way comes in, there are five streets coming in right there together, existing conditions are the whole problem, with existing grade. We've got to match what's there are we are not going to get anybody off the street onto the existing streets. The K value on the street, I cut off the profile on that street design and took the slope down at a little flatter than 3 to 1 to this neighbors driveway, if we didn't we'll be covering up his driveway. It's another existing condition constraint. We just accomplished the street design with all the existing conditions the best way we could realizing that we would have these conflicts. There they are and Ron has done a good job of finding out what details and listing the ordinances that violates to try to do that street design in that area. Ward: I do think that the things that is going to be hard to get a waiver on is the setback from detention ponds and things like that. Those are things you have to address for sure. I'm not sure that you are going to get actual approval at either Planning Commission or City Council, I think it's going to be a court action. You probably have a right to build if the existing has been grandfathered in but that's a court decision. It's going to be tough to get it approved through all these levels with all the variances that are going to be thrown at us. • Schmitt: Right now, for the large scale development, the only variance that we know of is the detention pond, is that right? • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 14, 2001 Page 37 Edwards: You did read Kim's note on the trees? Schmitt: I think that's a doubtful legality but I did read it. Edwards: Is that feasible without changing your site? Schmitt: I don't know, we need to get back and check. The first time we saw that was today. Ward: What I'm going to recommend we do is, I know it seems like we keep putting this off, I don't think it's going to go anywhere for a little while. I think we need to get this addressed with Glen and Bob with the detention, the tree preservation, plus you require 30% instead of 20%? Edwards: 30%. Schmitt: I would like to know what the dollar amount of the fine would be that she is anticipating. I think that needs to be an option. Ward: That would be something to get worked out before it comes back to us again and that way you can make a clear decision. At least a lot of little things that need to make decisions on so we can get approval or disapproval quickly through us. A lot of those issues and we kind of know what they are. Personally I think the concept, I don't know that there is much difference between the two concepts of putting in the six apartment complex buildings or six single family homes. I think that they are going to be strictly rental, right? They won't be able to be sold off. Schmitt: That's right. Ward: I haven't had a chance to really study this at all. Bunch: It's shown as three story and you made comment that you changed it to two story and that would cause reconfiguration? Schmitt: The three story shouldn't have been on there. We are going to run the roof lines north and south as opposed to east and west and what that does is allow us, where they measure that roof line, it allows us to move those farther towards the property line on the west, which gives us more room to meet the parking setback and retaining wall setback that Ron just mentioned. I don't think we'll have a problem addressing those issues. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 14, 2001 Page 38 Bunch: Are you talking about to the west or to the north? Schmitt: For the peak to run north and south. Bunch: You will be shifting the buildings which direction? Schmitt: They will move to the east. Bunch: That would cause a change in all these drawings which would... Schmitt: Basically everything would be shifted over about four or five feet. Carter: The issue with the detention pond is, I ran those numbers and I got them all to work and when I did the printout I had to go back and change something and it caused me to have to rerun the hydro graphs for each of those storms and two of them I didn't get rerun It showed a higher number. It's going to work exactly as it's shown, I just didn't print out the numbers to show it. Petrie: For the detention pond, the only thing I requested at Plat Review is to give me more information on these contour lines. I want to verify that these contours are going to work. Carter: They are shown on the grading plan. Petrie: The contours but not the elevations. Carter: Actually there is a difference between the contour number on the plan and on the report. The report I said the bottom of the pond was 15/20 and on the plan I show it as 15/22. I found that raising the pond exactly two feet fit all the other contours. On the plan it shows 15/22, I'll just have to go back and adjust the numbers in the computer on the report. Petrie: I never got a copy is part of the problem. PUBLIC COMMENT: Ward: I'll open it up to the public now, if anybody has something they want to bring up about this particular project. I don't think it's going to go much further today than right here but we would be happy to take public comment. Make sure you say your name and anything you would like to address. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 14, 2001 Page 39 Airs. Patrick Airs, my wife Lisa, we are adjoining. Ward: What side do you join? Airs: We are right at Lighton and Fletcher. Several issues, not the most important issue but we are just concerned about this property being put in at all. Apparently, it does meet the requirements with the City but we are really new to the area and the state. Our main concern is really changing the neighborhood, we just moved here less than a year ago. It's an extremely quite neighborhood. We really feel that two apartment complexes, adding 50 plus people is really going to change the neighborhood. Obviously property value plays a role. We really feel like all the additional people around it is going to make a definite impact. Ultimately, the biggest concern is traffic. There is a huge traffic issue, the streets are too skinny as they are. Obviously, we don't want to change the dynamics of the neighborhood so widening it and taking out even more trees than what have already been cut down, we feel would be a real concern. The street is not even marked. You can barely get two vehicles past each other on this road currently. With additional traffic it's going to be unbearable, not just on Fletcher but on down to Spring. There is some very dangerous turns. If additional roads are not added or can't be added, the only other option appears to be widening the current road which does even more damage to the neighborhood. We are concerned The exit to the apartment complex is a blind curve and coming off of Rogers is a real issue unless they plan to take down all these trees on the corner. Mrs. Airs: Why an apartment complex here? Six units, four rooms in each apartment, what market are you targeting for this apartment complex and how is it going to benefit and beautify our neighborhood? Ward: First of all this property has been zoned R-2 for a long time. It has been grandfathered in long before any of us got here probably. Mrs. Airs: Do we have any plans what this structure is going to look like? Ward. Not at this level. Davison: Sharon Davison. I have a big problem with this. The problem starts with the inappropriate zoning of this property as R-2. I just glanced at our big map in here and if you look at the few pockets of R-2 and where they join many of these R -1's, they should be R-1. Why they are R-2, I'm not sure. We have the problem with Lindsey wannabees such as this gentlemen who go and look on topos, pick out something good for them, good for their pocket book and come and try to inflict Subdivision Committee Meeting • June 14, 2001 Page 40 • • that upon an existing neighborhood. One, before you go any further on this, I would really hope that you go up to this property, if you haven't already. Have you been to this property? You know the roads. Have you been to maybe Lafayette and Fletcher at 8:00 in the morning or 5:00? I have certain issues such as there is a sweet little old lady, Mildred Rose, she's lived here forever. She takes her walks up there. I'm concerned because of this, I'm not going to see Mildred Rose there one day. Our children are in this neighborhood. Here we discuss the aspect of existing conditions are not conducive to this type of development, even if you set aside the concern of the neighborhood. I assure you that the neighborhood is completely against this. I speak only for myself but I've spoken to many of the neighbors, we will fight this. We will try our best not to let this go through because it is totally inappropriate for Fayetteville, for our neighborhood, for our children, for our community. Let's get to traffic, let's get to Center Street, they want to put this thing in, they should make sure Center Street is in first then we can see where and what can handle what. Again, this gentleman is sitting here wanting things and he has not come to the neighbors, he hid at the Council meeting, they know what they are doing to the neighborhood and they do not care. This is a major issue. You look at how they change things, we either don't have the figures, the figures are wrong. First we are told when it first came in "We are just going to put two houses in there." Fine. There are duplexes in the neighborhood. Right down from this lot Greg House has three duplexes on an acre, I m not positive. That is reasonable to pull up to the very edge that type of project. They could've been reasonable for trying to make a little money in this area, respecting the area and put in a couple of duplexes which are already in this R-1 area. We live across the street from people living in duplexes, duplexes are appropriate for R-1. Again, our problem is this is R-2 where it should be R-1. How do we go about dealing with this totally inappropriate thing until we fix R-2 back to R-1 how it should be, we can talk amongst the neighborhood to people who try and do this and ask them to voluntarily rezone it to R-1. We know this gentleman won't do that. What do we do? We rely on you, the Planning Commission, to do the right thing for us, the citizens that are here, the citizens have bought in this particular area specifically for it's family oriented, home quietness. We ask you to use at your disposal the legalities such as the problems with the streets, the conditions, the safety, the traffic, to deny these inappropriate plans put in an area that technically zoned R-2 he can do what he wants but if you can help us by telling him "We are not going to give you waivers. One, you have been up front about your project. You have not been really, in my opinion, honest about the details and you also really don't know what you are doing." Three stories, two stories, two units, twenty-four units, we won't know, they are waiting to see what they can push over on you. What I would appreciate you doing is telling them you are not going to get pushed • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 14, 2001 Page 41 over by people trying to do inappropriate projects in inappropriate areas that are a heightened risk, not just to our little neighborhood but a real risk as far as pedestnan traffic and auto traffic. It is increasing the danger of the area and I will hold this gentleman responsible if something happens to Mildred Rose. I can say a whole lot more but we know why this guy bought this, we know what he's doing, we know what he did over on Marcum, I know what he's about and I don't appreciate it in my neighborhood. So, I will fight you on this sir. Ward: You need to keep your comments non -personal. Schmitt. First is, I've never done any projects on Marcum. Second, I've done two projects on Mount Sequoyah in the past three years, both of them have received nothing but good comments from the neighbors. All of them think they are additions to the areas. One of them is on Lighton Trail which is just up the street from the Airs. There was a condemned house that had been there, was a fire danger, and I put in neighboring units that has received nothing but good comments. Another was two vacant lots that I found over on Olive Street. I built a $420,000 house there that the Trumbo's live in that is a beautiful addition to the neighborhood. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: Ward: I would like to bring it back to the Committee. Bunch: This is part of a previously platted subdivision which extends, if I'm not mistaken, to the west on the non-existent Center Street, it basically goes down hill? Schmitt: That is correct. Bunch: What do we look at on those people's ability to develop their property? We have a street that is not necessarily going to be able to build a street on that's platted. We have property platted, somebody's paying taxes on that property, how does this tie in with looking at that in the future? There are other people who are going to want to develop that property, how does this tie in with that? Petrie: Anything could happen. I don't think I could give you a good enough answer. That drops straight down off that mountain. My opinion is, you could never get Center Street built. It would never work appropriately. The concerns of several people who live in the area are avoiding getting that connected. My guess is, this is just a guess is a lot of that land will be developed into something else, whether • • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 14, 2001 Page 42 it's a PUD. Schmitt: I think Greg House is working on that right now. What's the status of that, Sara? Edwards: I haven't heard anything. Schmitt: He bought quite a few of those lots so I know you will be addressing this again probably in the near future. Davison: We do desire addressing this half acre aspect, his partner will come in and he'll want another 25 spots and he'll want another garages, do we understand this man is asking for four bedroom units with 50 parking spaces? We just had these large scale developments over there by the Agri Farm. Ward: I would like to recommend to table this. I would like you to get with the setback requirements on the detention pond, also the trees. I think we need to get those two issues wound up and you will have a better chance. Bunch: I have a question on this retaining wall, how close is that to the property line? Schmitt: He informed us it needs to be five feet. Bunch: Is that close enough that any kind of construction easements are going to be required or neighbor's property or anything of that nature? Petrie. If it's setback five feet it doesn't require it unless the actual construction of it requires it. If it was closer than that we would require them to get an easement Just so we know we have the adjacent property owner's approval to put it there. There is some stipulations for being able to do that. You don't necessarily need a waiver if the adjacent property is for it. Schmitt: I assume rip rap is out of the question? Petrie: The City policy is not to accept that. Bunch: This will require new drawings so when are we looking at it again? Is this an indefinite table or to be brought back... • Edwards. Do you need it to come back to Plat Review or here? • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 14, 2001 Page 43 Petne: Here is fine. Edwards. Two weeks. The deadline will be Wednesday the 20`x. MOTION: Bunch: I'll move that we table LSD 01-19.00 to be brought back to the Subdivision Committee when appropriate measures have been completed. Hoover: I'll second. Ward: I'll concur.