Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-06-28 - Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, June 28, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED FPL 01-6.00: Page 2 LSD 01-21.00: Page 6 LSD 01-22.00: Page 11 LSD 01-20.00: Page 14 LSD 01-19.00: Page 17 Final Plat (Bridgeport Phase V, pp 360) ACTION TAKEN Large Scale Development (Merit Electric, pp 642) Large Scale Development (Noble Oaks Apartment, pp 405) Large Scale Development (City of Fayetteville P.V.F.V., pp 600) 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 Approved Forwarded Approved Approved Forwarded MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF ABSENT Fire Chief Solid Waste Bert Rakes Jim Johnson Perry Franklin • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 28, 2001 Page 2 FPL 01-6.00: Final Plat (Bridgeport Phase V, pp 360) was submitted by Michael Marie of Engineering Design Associates on behalf of Creekwood Hills Development, Inc. for property located north and west of New Bridge Road The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 14.34 acres with 43 lots proposed. Ward: Good morning. This is the meeting of the Subdivision Committee. Today is Thursday June 28, 2001. We have five items on the agenda this morning. In order to get through these, I would like to move right along. The first item is FPL 01-6.00, final plat for Bridgeport submitted by Michael Marie of Engineering Design Associates on behalf of Creekwood Hills Development, Inc. for property located north and west of New Bridge Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 14 34 acres with 43 lots proposed. Conklin: This is a final plat for Bridgeport Phase V. A final plat is a subdivision that has been substantially completed, the roads are in, the curb and gutter, the utilities are almost all in. What we are looking at is to make sure what you approved at preliminary plat level is what they actually went out and constructed and built. The preliminary plat was approved on January 13, 1999. It's zoned R-1 It adjoins Bridgeport Phase IV back to the southeast. The Subdivision Committee can approve this final plat at this level. Conditions to address and discuss include: Number one, all debris and piles of dirt shall be removed from the park, mulch shall be added to five trees that have been specified by the Parks and Recreation Division, and the drainage ditch shall be completed and inspected by the Parks Division prior to signing of the final plat. Number two, an assessment was made at the time of preliminary plat approval in the amount of $8,600 (43 lots @ $200) for improvements to the hamstring sanitary sewer basin. This payment shall be made prior to signing the final plat. Just one other issue that has come up in the past few weeks, the issue of Mr. Don Hendrix who's property is up here to the north of this project. At the time the preliminary plat approval was given, their developers and engineer met with Mr. Hendrix and came up with an agreement to extend the sewer line through his property at the same time providing two sewer taps. Mr. Hendrix was unaware that you cannot tie onto our city sewer without being annexed into the City of Fayetteville. He came to our City Council meeting about four weeks ago and was concerned about what had happened with the sewer taps being put in and then finding out that he couldn't tie onto them. The City Council did agree to allow him to tie onto the taps subject to him annexing into the City. I bring this up because Mr. Hendrix, most citizens don't have the paperwork to go ahead and file an order of annexation over at the County Judge's office. I did ask Mr. Helmer, one of the representatives for the developer, if he would contact Mr. Hendrix and see if they could work with him to get that process in the works. It would be much easier for the Subdivision Committee Meeting • June 28, 2001 Page 3 • developer and representatives to get that process through than Mr. Hendrix going out and hiring someone or trying to get it himself. That's the only issue, I haven't had a chance to talk with EDA or Mr. Helmer about this but maybe we can find out more information about that. Ward: Keith, sidewalks? Keith Shreve - Sidewalk and Trails Shreve: No comment. Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie: Also on Mr. Hendrix, engineering will be contacting him to make sure this drainage that was put in is to his satisfaction. That agreement was part of the original conditions of approval. We want to make sure he is happy with that. The other thing, this off-site easement, our land agents have reviewed that and it's okay to record. S.Hesse: Which one are you talking about? Petrie: The one up to the south, utility easement. Kim Hesse - Landscape Administrator K.Hesse: No comment Kim Rogers - Parks Operations Coordinator Rogers: No comment. PUBLIC COMMENT: Ward: I will open it up to the public. Is there any comment on this particular item for the final plat for Bridgeport? COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: Ward: Seeing none, I'll close it to the public and bring it back to the Committee. What was • this agreement on the easement, it's not with Hendrix, it's somebody to the south? • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 28, 2001 Page 4 Petrie: With the sewer or the one I mentioned? Ward: The one you mentioned. Petrie: It is across Mr. Hendrix's property. The one thing, when it came through preliminary plat, I determined we needed some detention ponds on the site and at that point Mr. Hendrix got an agreement to run the additional water across his property. That agreement was a part of the conditions of approval so I wanted to make sure, in that agreement it had some specifics on how he wanted the land returned. I wanted to make sure he was happy with that before we'll sign off on the final plat. S.Hesse: I just met with Mr. Hendrix out there a few minutes ago. We are aware we've got some work here we've got to put some gravel on his driveway down through there and do some clean-up work and work a little bit on the storm sewers. Bunch: Are there any manholes down through here that have to have access on that easement, has that been taken care of? S.Hesse: Yes. That's the drive that they are going to gravel. It's just a dirt driveway right now. Bunch: You are going to handle working with Mr. Hendrix to make sure he gets his annexation? S.Hesse: We are going to help him out. Bill has talked to him about it. Ward: How many acres does he own? Conklin: I can't remember, 15 or more. It's a large acreage. I think it goes over to Mount Comfort Road.. I've talked with him, I don't believe he wants to annex the entire piece of property in, I think Just where the houses are. Helmer: I need to visit with you about that. Bunch: What timing are we looking at on this? Conklin: You file it at the County, you have a 30 day waiting period, you have to advertise in the newspaper three times. After you wait 30 days, the County Judge signs the conformation of the order and submit it to our office. It's 21 days to Planning Commission and it takes the ordinance to City Council another month. You are looking Subdivision Committee Meeting • June 28, 2001 Page 5 • • at 21/4 months. Bunch: These houses are already built that's going to be that long before you can tie onto the sewer. Conklin: No. The City will allow them to tie in right now. I do want to make sure this does happen though. I'll put you on notice right now, if it doesn't happen, the future phases of the development we may have to put conditions on there. Ward: Is it a legal liability letting them tie in now without being in the City? Conklin: Don Bunn said that's a common practice as long as they are working on the annexation. Ward: Any other questions? Bunch: Ron, I noticed when I was out there that the sewer culverts weren't completed, was that already far enough along? Are you satisfied with that? Petrie: They are far enough along to get this approval. They are several weeks away from getting through. We usually have final inspection before it comes here, there was a conflict, it's scheduled for Monday. I don't have a punch list in front of me, I've been out there and seen where they are at. They are probably several weeks away. Bunch: You are comfortable with it? Petrie: At this point, yes. MOTION: Bunch: I move we approve final plat 01-6.00 for Bridgeport Phase V, at this level. Hoover: I'll second. Ward: I'll concur. • • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 28, 2001 Page 6 LSD 01-21.00: Large Scale Development (Merit Electric, pp 642) was submitted by Milholland Company on behalf of Merit Electric for property located south of Pump Station Road and east of City Lake Road. The property is zoned I-1 and I-2, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and General Industrial and contains approximately 2 acres. The request is to build an 8,460 sq.ft. warehouse. Ward: The second item on the agenda is LSD 01-21.00 a large scale development submitted by Milholland Company on behalf of Merit Electric for property located south of Pump Station Road and east of City Lake Road. The property is zoned I-1 and I-2, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and General Industrial and contains approximately 2 acres. The request is to build an 8,460 sq.ft. warehouse. Conklin: The subject property is located approximately 500 feet southeast of the intersection of City Lake Road and Pump Station Road Adjacent property is zoned A-1 to the north and east and I-1/1-2 to the south. City Lake Road is a collector street on the Master Street Plan and has the required right-of-way existing. The applicant is providing the 15 parking spaces required by ordinance. Currently 22.4% of the site is covered in tree canopy. The applicant is proposing to preserve 5.5% of the site and to replace 10.3% canopy. The total preserved and replaced is 15.8%. The requirement in an 1-1 zone is 15%. Staff recommends forwarding this to the entire Planning Commission. Conditions to address and discuss include: Planning Commission determination of the requested waiver from § 166.08(C)(13) which requires that the distance between curb cuts on a collector street be a minimum of 30 feet apart. The applicant is providing 29 feet between the two curb cuts in order to facilitate the turning movements of large trucks. There is a request from the applicant that's attached to this report. Merit Electric contractor service will be having large semi truck tractor -trailers coming in and out and they are requesting the additional room to get those tractor -trailers in and out of the site. Number two, Planning Commission determination of the requested waiver from § 172.01(C)(3) which requires that a one-way parking lot aisle be 12 feet wide. The applicant is requesting to provide a 27' aisle in order to facilitate the movement of large truck traffic. There is a letter from the applicant on that request. Number three, Planning Commission determination of the requested waiver from §172.01(F)(1)(a) which requires that "all landscaped islands be protected from potential damage by vehicles by placing concrete curbs or wheel barriers adjacent to the landscaped area." There is a letter from the applicant on that request. Any time we have required landscaping, if you look at your site plan, all that landscaping is required to have a concrete curb to protect it. They are concerned about conflicts with truck traffic and that's the whole purpose of the concrete curb is to make sure the truck traffic is not running over your landscaping. Staff is not in support of waiving the concrete curb requirement for the landscaping. The rest are standard conditions of • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 28, 2001 Page 7 approval on this project. This is an electrical contractor service. They are going to have a small accessory office to there, this is not open to the general public where people come in and buy things. The office will be used for their day-to-day operations. Therefore, being zoned I-1 commercial design standards with regard to the actual architectural design of the building do not apply, they can have a metal building for this type of use. Ward: Keith, sidewalks? Keith Shreve - Sidewalk and Trails Shreve: Nothing additional on this. Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie: Just one thing, in regards to some of the aisle widths or entrances, I'll tell you that the Engineering Division, Paul Libertini has run the truck traffic with a special program that determines the site dimensions that are needed. From what we got originally from Plat Review, they have been reduced significantly to match what we came up with. I just wanted to point that out. Kim Hesse - Landscape Administrator Hesse: Ward: Hesse: For your information, the plat explains a lot of removal because many of them were in pretty bad shape and we tried to work around the ones that were okay. I was unaware of the variance request. What is your take on that in the industrial area? I think there are no actual trees in parking spaces, most are on the perimeter. Does he want to remove the curb throughout the whole thing? Conklin: Around the required landscaped areas. Hesse: Just in the front? Conklin: Yes. • Ward: This goes to full Planning Commission so why don't you look at it and give us another • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 28, 2001 Page 8 Hesse: Conklin: Milholland: Conklin: Milholland: Ward: recommendation by the time we take it forward, see what your thoughts are? Other than that they have met the requirements. I would like to ask the applicant, the purpose of removing the curb, why would you request that? Along here? Yes, this island along here and here. The landscaping is there, we have sheet flow off the asphalt. I'm trying to remember back, my thoughts were we are not trying to collect the water, we just let the water shoot from across the landscaping into the ditch out there and on the inside. Around the tuming radius there are truck problems there. Those are the two things I would think of. They gave us four reasons in that letter. Milholland: I apologize, I was on vacation for two weeks. Ward: There is a letter with the reasons for the request by Tom Jefcoat. Kim Rogers - Parks Operations Coordinator Rogers: Ward: Milholland: Hesse: No comment. Mel, do you have anything else? I'll say that what Ron brought up in our revision to the full Planning Commission will have the modification on radius and so forth on that. I'II get with Tim on this curbing and refresh my memory on why we requested that. I did not hear everything Kim had to say. We worked with her very closely on this. I was just making sure that they were aware of why the trees were being removed, it was the health. Milholland: I would like to stress that this is not a sales office, this is a warehouse where not only will the owner be coming in with large trucks to pick up supplies but there will be large Subdivision Committee Meeting • June 28, 2001 Page 9 • • Ward: Milholland: trucks, 18 wheelers, delivering supplies for purchase. Is semi trucks coming in will be a more critical factor of having a wider turn radius? 18 wheelers come in and we had originally designed for both directions, the Engineering staff said they think they will have to come in from the north, it's a state highway. That's why we had wider turning radiuses in either direction. An 18 wheeler may come in and deliver one box out of a fully loaded truck. PUBLIC COMMENT: Ward: Is there anyone in the public that would like to make a comment on this item? COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: Ward: Conklin: Ward: Conklin: Ward: Conklin: Seeing none, I'll close it to the public and bring it back to the Committee. It looks like the waivers that you are requesting, a one foot waiver? That's something staff supports. What about number two? Staff supports that. Number three? Number three, I'm personally concerned that the reason why you have the concrete curb is to protect landscaping and we can't engineer it correctly to get the trucks in there. Milholland: I'll get with staff. Ward: MOTION: Bunch: Do some more consideration on it before it goes to the full Planning Commission. I will move that we forward LSD 01-21.00 to the full Planning Commission with the additional information. Subdivision Committee Meeting • June 28, 2001 Page 10 • • Hoover: I'Il second. Ward: I'll concur. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 28, 2001 Page 11 LSD 01-22.00: Large Scale Development (Noble Oaks Apartments, pp 405) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Sweetser Properties for property located west of Leverett between Holly Street & Lawson Street. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 4 acres with 96 units proposed. Ward: The third item on our agenda this morning is large scale development 01-22.00 for Noble Oaks Apartments submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Sweetser Properties for property located west of Leverett between Holly Street & Lawson Street. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 4 acres with 96 units proposed. Conklin: The surrounding zoning for this property is R-2 to the north, R -2/I-1 to the east, R-2 to the south, and R -2/R-3 to the west. The applicant is dedicating additional right-of-way to meet the 35 feet from centerline requirement for a collector street. The required number of parking spaces for this development is 132. The applicant is providing 125 spaces plus seven additional bike racks for a total of 10 bike racks. Under the new bicycle parking ordinance parking may be reduced when additional bike racks are provided. There is currently 50.67% of the site existing in canopy. The applicant is preserving 20.95%. The requirement in an R-2 zone is 20%. 1 would like to thank the applicant for working with Kim Hesse on working around the trees to meet the ordinance requirements and protect many of the rare landmark trees on the site. Staff is recommending approval at this level. There are no conditions to address. Once again, Dave Jorgensen and Jorgensen & Associates has worked with staff closely to work out all the issues and are pleased to bring this forward to you meeting all our ordinance requirements. Ward: Keith, sidewalks? Keith Shreve - Sidewalk and Trails Shreve: No comment. Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie: No comment. Kim Hesse - Landscape Administrator Hesse: No comment. • • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 28, 2001 Page 12 Ward: We do have parks fees in the amount of $36,000 being paid. Kim Rogers - Parks Operations Coordinator Rogers: That's all. Ward: The only concern I usually have is that, especially on this kind of apartments, it seems like there are always more cars than there are parking spaces. Edwards: I'm sure Dave can explain this also but they, according to them and I haven't verified this information since they agreed to the bike rack, according to them they have additional parking up in this property to the north which Sweetser also owns. They think that will provide enough parking for both developments. Ward: I don't think there are enough parking spaces to be honest with you. Conklin: They could ride bicycles. Hoover: Walk. Bunch: Get on the bus. Ward: Dave, do you have any further comments? Jorgensen: No, we don't. PUBLIC COMMENT: Ward: I'll open it to the public to comment on this particular large scale development for 96 units. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: Ward: Bunch: Seeing none, I'll close it to the public and bring it back to the Committee. Dave, on this existing dumpster, with the connectivity from the existing apartment, do you have a relocation for that? I guess that's the dumpster that serves this facility over here so you'll be without a dumpster. If we are going to approve it at this level, we need to have an approved location. • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 28, 2001 Page 13 Jorgensen: Where would you say the existing dumpster was going to be moved, Mike? I think Chris talked to Solid Waste and found out they can move that one to here. Bunch: Is that why you are having two? Jorgensen: Yes sir. I know that he called but I never heard the final outcome. That was what the request was. Bunch: Tim, do we need to have a ruling from the Solid Waste Division on that since an existing dumpster is being removed and it's not clear on the drawings? Conklin: I think when they come through the building permit, Solid Waste does review these and that can be worked out at that time. I'm confident that it can be worked out. • Hoover: I have no problem with the less parking. Hesse: I don't know if you have been by the site but it's a beautiful site. • MOTION: Hoover: I'll make a motion that we approve LSD 01-22.00 subject to the standard conditions of approval. Bunch: I'll second. Ward: I'll concur. • • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 28, 2001 Page 14 LSD 01-20.00: Large Scale Development (City of Fayetteville P.V.F.V , pp 600) was submitted by Jamie Highfill on behalf of the City of Fayetteville for property located at 1932 S. Garland. The property is zoned I-1 and R-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and Low Density Residential and contains approximately 5.15 acres. The request is to build an 6,900 sq. ft. structure with 47 parking spaces. Ward: The next item is large scale development for LSD 01-20.00 for City of Fayetteville P.V.F.V. submitted by Jamie Highfill on behalf of the City of Fayetteville for property located at 1932 S. Garland. The property is zoned I-1 and R-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and Low Density Residential and contains approximately 5.15 acres. The request is to build an 6,900 sq. ft. structure with 47 parking spaces. Foster: I'm Jim Foster, the representative. Conklin: This property is zoned I-1 on the northern portion and R-1 on the southern portion. The zoning line runs through the new structure. Under §160.03(1-1) the City Planner may permit the extension of zoning regulations 50 feet beyond the zoning district line. However, the proposal is also for additional parking which extends beyond that 50 feet allowed. Therefore, a conditional use is being requested for parking in a different zoning district. There is a mixture of R-1, R-2, and I-1 zoning surrounding this property. The requirement is 15% canopy preservation in an I-1 zone and 25% in an R-1 zone. The proposal is for 8.6% preservation, and 12.1% replacement. This will bring the total canopy on the site to 20.07%. Staff is recommending this go to the full Planning Commission. Conditions to address and discuss include: One bicycle parking rack is required. The finished floor elevation of the new structure shall be 1227.50. The plat shall be revised to reflect this. This is within the 100 year flood plain. All the structures are required to be elevated two feet above the base flood elevation and Sara Edwards here has established that to be 1227.50. Number three, the radius of driveway shall be 25 feet. Plat shall be revised to reflect this. The applicant shall add the parking ratio being used in order to calculate the number of parking spaces to be provided. All overhead utility lines under 12KV shall be placed underground. A six foot tall wood board privacy fence shall be added along the entire western boundary of this project. That is something new that we haven't talked with the representative about. I did talk with one of the neighbors, Mr. Paskill, they would like the fence to be located outside of his garden along this eastern drive. They would like a fence for some privacy along that property line. Staff is making that a condition for our project. Foster: Does it stop exactly where your red line stops? • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 28, 2001 Page 15 Conklin: There is an existing wood privacy fence right there. The rest are standard conditions of approval. With the fence, the property owner seemed fairly satisfied with this project. Bunch: Would that be more or less on the west edge of the pavement in the existing fence line? They need to maintain the existing fence line that's been there for years? Conklin: Yes. There is an issue, if you look at the survey, it actually is further to the west. It actually goes through his garden, the survey line that he's been there since 1960 or something like that. In order to be a good neighbor, we kept the limits of the project to where the existing drive was so we are not encroaching even though that survey shows it's City land, we are not encroaching into that property. Bunch: Does it tie in to where the fence runs east and west on the north side of the entranceway? Conklin: Yes. • Ward: Keith? Keith Shreve - Sidewalk and Trails Shreve: We are requesting a six foot sidewalk due to the width of the property, basically through the driveway. It's not shown and I would like it to be shown. • Foster: It showed on sheet C1 but you are right it's not showing now. It will be there. Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie: No comment. Kim Hesse - Landscape Administrator Hesse: No comment. Ward: Are there any comments you would like to make about this? Foster: No. The conditions are fine. Ward: You need to show a bicycle parking rack, where would that be put? • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 28, 2001 Page 16 Foster: It shows up on Cl. PUBLIC COMMENT: Ward: At this time I'll open it up to the public. Would anybody like to make a public comment on this particular agenda item? COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: Ward: Seeing none, I'll close it to the public and bring it back to the Committee. This has to go to full Planning Commission? Conklin: Actually you could approve the large scale here, subject to conditional use approval. Bunch: Once that hits Planning Commission for the parking lot conditional use, would that have to be discussed or can that be on the consent? • Conklin: We have to discuss and vote on it, five affirmative votes. MOTION: Bunch: I'll move that we approve LSD 01-20.00 at this level and the conditional use for the parking lot go to full Planning Commission. Hoover: I'll second. Ward: I'll concur. • • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 28, 2001 Page 17 LSD 01-19.00: Large Scale Development (Hometown Developments, pp 524) was submitted by Robert Schmitt of Hometown Developments for property located on the south and west 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 today is LSD 01-19.00 a large scale development for Hometown Developments submitted by Robert Schmitt of Hometown Developments for property located on the south and west 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. Conklin: This property was before the Planning Commission on April 23, 2001 with a request to not provide the required street frontage for lots in an R-2 zone. If you recall, Center Street comes straight up the hill, it's undeveloped at this time, it kind of parallels Fletcher Street. The applicant owns this lot right here. Basically you would have to cross the Center Street right-of-way to get to the Fletcher Street right-of-way. Therefore, technically he doesn't have frontage on Fletcher Street. It's a very unique situation, typically we don't have two street rights-of-way that parallel each other. Therefore, staff is not recommending that they actually build the street. This property is zoned R-2, it was zoned back in 1970, R-2. The waiver was requested to approve this project at that time for the street frontage. We required them to go through large scale development process. The applicant is proposing seven units with four bedrooms is each unit. There is property zoned R-2 to the east, west and south of this project. If this project is not approved, the applicant is requesting permission to build Center Street. Basically the right-of-way exists, it's existed for a long time. Typically, the way these are handled, in order to get the street frontage they would actually build Center Street which would give them the required frontage for the zoning in place. Therefore, it would be an administrative approval through Planning and Inspection Divisions. The only reason they are here today is because of the street right-of-way intervening between Fletcher and Center. Several waivers are being requested as part of the actual construction of the street, if that's what ends up happening, if they build the street to get the required frontage to build the project. Both items will be on the next Planning Commission agenda. Staff is recommending this project be forwarded to the entire Planning Commission. Conditions to address and discuss: All Dumpsters and utility equipment shall be screened. We have done traffic counts here at the City. With regard to traffic on Fletcher Street, we did a 24 hour count. Daily totals were 834 vehicles. We have looked at what 7 units of apartments would generate, based on 28 persons in the apartment and that came up to a 24 hour, two-way volume of 94 vehicles per day. Currently we are at 834, this project would add 94 Perry Franklin Subdivision Committee Meeting • June 28, 2001 Page 18 • • has been out there and has taken a look at it with regard to ability to have a curb cut at that location and did find that it would meet sight distance standards. I just wanted to share that information with you with regard to the amount of traffic this project would generate. Ward: Keith? Keith Shreve - Sidewalk and Trails Shreve: We are requesting a six foot sidewalk due to the zoning and on the drawing it's shown as four foot. A correction needs to be made. Your detail shows a six foot sidewalk. That's the only comment I have. Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie: I would request that we get all the grades shown for the sidewalk and, if you are going to meet the 2% requirement, it will throw some of your grades off. I'm not sure how it will affect the other things. Conklin: 2% above the street elevation9 Petrie: Yes. Shreve: Also the cross slope. Carter: The slope of the sidewalk will follow the slope of Fletcher, right? Shreve: Yes. Carter: Cross slope 2%. You want to see the contours and grades, okay. Petrie: The detention pond, I've looked at that and what's shown is not complete. You show the topo up to elevation of 1525 and you don't show it coming back down to meet natural ground. Almost all the way around this whole perimeter of this detention pond that grading would have to be off-site to make it work as it's shown. Unless, of course you put a retaining wall all the way around the detention pond. Your outlet structure that you show doesn't match, change that to make it all match. This retaining wall along the west side, make sure you are aware that would require both a guard rail and a hand rail. This is in proximity to that parking lot. That's all I've got. • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 28, 2001 Page 19 Ward: Carter: Did you understand about the detention pond? Yes, I did. What I had shown there, I didn't mention in my drainage report was just an overflow spillway to where this is going. Petrie: Actually you mentioned a 13 inch orifice, not a spillway. Carter: I did not mention it in my report, I know. I'll fix that. Petrie: The other comment I have, I've gotten a revised summary for the detention pond calculations, I need the back up. Kim Hesse - Landscape Administrator Hesse: I don't know if you remember my memo from last time? Edwards: I included it in there. Hesse: The concern is the trees in the parking lot. It looks like they are giving 200 square foot. Unless you do some sort of alternative paving or something. What I was concerned about is giving the trees enough space to grow to maturity. I believe I requested 1,200 square foot. Carter: We had 7 feet in those islands and you said that wasn't wide enough, you needed 10 feet to put a tree in so we revised the plan and put 10 feet. Hesse: Which would have been for a typical medium size trees, what I was trying to do was get 8 large species trees, big canopy, 1,200 square foot per tree to grow. You can do that if you use alternative paving where the pavement allows for filtration and air, which is an option if you put them in the landscaped islands. Another concern is the trees in the right-of-way area will they be obsolete, it looks like right-of-way area. Any grading that would happen here, if they are not removing more trees. The retaining wall stops here, the possibility of a retaining wall, check with engineering, that could go in the right-of-way. That would take the retaining wall out to do preservation here. Those are my concerns. The rest of these trees could have room to grow, this gives them space. I'm just real concerned being surrounded by pavement and buildings, unless the paving is filtered. Schmitt: That's for large trees as opposed to medium sized trees? • • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 28, 2001 Page 20 Hesse: Right. The way our parking lot landscape standards are established, that's why we have the different options and if you choose large species you don't have to put in as many but you do have to give them more space. This would be for a medium sized tree. Even then, the parking lot trees are not really there to get your canopy back up, they are more as an addition. What I was concerned with on these was getting canopy back up for the tree loss. That's why I'm trying to get the large species in there and more room for them to grow. Carter: Are the four up front spaced okay? Hesse: I'm concerned a little bit about this one just because you have one right by the dumpster pad. I don't know about foundation you will be building near the dumpster pad, there needs to be room for those roots to head to the northeast. Schmitt: How much room do you need, like a 20 by 20 section for large trees? Is that what you look for? You said you want 400 square feet per tree? Hesse: Carter: Hesse: 1,200 square feet. What we do, in the current ordinance is undersized and the idea is to require more trees to get enough. You can do it that way but you would end up with more trees in an 800 square foot space. You go this way you need 8 trees but they end up in a 1,200 square foot space. Would it be a problem, we've got one more tree than we were supposed to put on here, if we took two out of these island and put them on the north side of the pond? On the north side of the pond there is a space where there is nothing, we could put a tree there couldn't we and then one on the south side of the pond? I think the south side of the pond you are getting too close to existing canopy. I don't know how your grades are. It Just depends on what you do with your grades. I want to see how that comes out. Yes, there is room here on the north side of the pond for probably two, that's assuming the tree roots are going in the pond area. Schmitt: Just remove them all from the parking area9 Hesse: Unless you do altemative paving. Schmitt: Can we do two down here and just put medium size trees in the parking island? That would give you what you requested plus three medium size trees. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 28, 2001 Page 21 Hesse: It will probably calculate to the canopy removed. What we are trying to do is get the canopy back in. I don't want to see any additional removal up in here. Schmitt: I think the only additional removal that would be required up in here would be required by the sidewalk Hesse: With these grades you can remove them here, depending on how this graded out once we saw the grades in the canopy here too. Until we see the rest of the grades, I would be concerned about that. I suggest retaining walls. Ward: Are there rare trees there? Hesse: I don't believe they were. Bunch: What kind of trees are those? Hesse: Walnut, cherry, oak. Bunch: The eight or nine trees? Hesse: We've asked for hardwoods. Schmitt: We trying to get oak. Hoover: Are there just these four trees here or are there more? Hesse: There is little trees. Those are probably located 12 inch and up. Carter: They are 8 to 12 inch. Most of them are under 12. Hesse: I couldn't tell you specifically what these species are. Bunch: My concern would be more with replacement trees. Ward: Is there a certain type of oak tree that you are talking about normally? Hesse: No. White or red oak, 2 inch caliper. Ward: 2 or 2 %? • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 28, 2001 Page 22 Hesse: Yes. Ward: Bob, do you have any other comments to make on the development? Schmitt: I don't think so. Bunch: I see you added an additional unit, from six to seven and eliminated the space in between them? Schmitt: Yes sir. Given some of the requirements that were thrown at us at the last meeting, we didn't have a whole lot of options. PUBLIC COMMENT: Ward: At this time I would like to turn it over to the public for comment. If you have comment, keep your comments strictly to this particular item we are discussing, make them brief and once somebody has said something don't keep repeating the same issues. Havens: I'm Jerry Havens. I live on Lighton Trail and I was here at the first meeting so I won't repeat any of the comments I made there. I really have two requests for information, this may not be the place to get them but maybe you can tell me where I can follow up. My concerns are two. First, has to do with the fact that the standard conditions of approval that are listed as a follow to see the City looked at make final approval of grading, drainage, water, sewer and all of these things, I'm concerned about the sewer because I've lived up there for a long time and I know that there are some fairly significant sewer problems there. I suspect they are all over town. They boil down to the fact that we have occasion, particularly when we have a lot of rain, we have sewage overflows and results in odors and so forth. When I called the City about that, basically all they could tell me is that we could expect the sewage system is not in the condition we would like to have it but prohibitive to fix it, etcetera, etcetera. My concern here is, who is looking the question of how this development would impact the sewage system. I would like to have some quantitative information on that, I assume somebody is bound to do that. The second question was prompted by my reading of your handout today, it has to do with the letter that requests waivers from the City of Fayetteville minimum street standards. There are five specific requests for waivers and I won't go into it in detail but my reading of them suggest that they are very significant. There was a waiver here earlier to go from the required 30 feet to 29 feet, these are much more meaningful waivers. When I read them, they look to me like they would be very important from Subdivision Committee Meeting June 28, 2001 Page 23 the standpoint of traffic safety, not the density of traffic, not the number of people that would be traveling on the road but from the safety problems that would be generated by the closeness to the intersection, the angle of the intersection and so forth. My request is there just to have you suggest to me on how I could follow up on how decisions would be made to grant these waivers. Ward: Ron, if you would like to make some comments about the sewer or what problems we have? Petrie: That is certainly an older part of the system. I know there are some problems. You asked me about quantitative information, that is information I don't have with me. As a Staff Engineer here reviews these plans and what I have to do, of course on public sewer they are going to put in, it's more or Less my responsibility to make sure that gets put in per code. When it comes to what our capacities are, I have to rely on David Jurgens, Water and Sewer Superintendent. He's the one who knows where the problems are and deals with them on a daily basis. I have to rely on him telling me if this is going to cause problems when it comes to actual capacity. Mr. Jurgens gets the same plat material that I do. Also, when it comes to capacity we have a study that's usually updated every few years on where the problem areas and where we need to attack next as a capital improvement project. I don't have all .the answers you need right now. That's something I can look into, there is people in the City that can get you some more information. That's how it's reviewed and looked at potential problems. Havens: I would like to request that information. Petrie: Sure. The minimum street standards that you mentioned, those waiver requests are only if they are required to build Center Street. What's before us right now is not doing that. Havens: Do I understand you that if they go to Fletcher there is no waiver required for that? Petrie: From the minimum street standards, I'm not sure about the other standards. From the street standards there is not. We wouldn't support those waiver requests either. What I'm told, they want to bring that forward at the next Planning Commission if this is forwarded, they would like to have that as an administrative item to be heard after this. If this development, as we've got it, is not approved, they would like that administrative item to be heard on building that street and giving the proper road frontage. Havens: When I got into this the thing that really concerned me about it is the fact that I was the • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 28, 2001 Page 24 Ward: first one to discover trees going down and now we are dealing with how we can replace them and I feel that was a very deliberate move to get down the road so we couldn't turn around and go backwards. That's what my concern is here and why I raise these questions because as I understand this, there has been a position taken by the developer that if such and such doesn't occur today then they are going to move in another direction. Apparently this waiver question associated with Center Street is the preparation in going in another direction if this doesn't happen In the interest of the homeowners out there, this is all a very confusing situation and I'm appealing to you all to help me insure that the City takes a look at all of these questions under the existing standards and evaluate them fairly for all of us. I know I'm confused because Fletcher and Center and other streets come together right there. We have a piece of property that's been zoned R-2 for a long time, it's been there longer than any of us have been up there. We are very concerned about all the things up there, traffic, density and those type of things but the property has been sitting there all these years as R-2 property. It's a complicated problem. I don't know if there is a perfect way of doing it. Green: I'm Michael Green, I live at Texas Way and Lighton Trail. I guess one of my main concerns is this is going to be a high density shock to a very low density neighborhood although this obviously is a long term plan. Part of the neighborhood, as far as R-2 is concerned, there has never been anything with this high a density. There is also a lot next to it, which is probably off the justification of this approval, will proceed with further adding to the number of people and traffic right in that area I'm also concerned about this being so close, within yards of the intersection of four streets, none of which have a square angle on them. They are all coming in different angles and the sight lines are not textbook sight lines. I would feel better if the traffic people really take a very close look at this, both from their quantitative standpoint, from the sight lines that they have there, plus the considerations of the brush at the intersections and the strange angles that the streets come together. I've personally witnessed several car accidents there, even with the lower traffic counts we see there now. I'm really concerned about what this shock is going to do with that narrow street. Also, there is no place to park along those streets, they are very narrow, they don't have shoulders, only ditches right around that particular development. Where is the overflow going to park? I hope there is 28 parking spaces, at least one for each bedroom unit. I think there was some concern initially that there were going to be too many parking spaces. I'm kind of concerned there is not going to be enough and then people are going to have to end up parking on the street, they have visitors and things of this sort. I just don't think this has been thought out very well and I know all of my concerns have not been addressed yet. • • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 28, 2001 Page 25 Before this gets too far, I want to request that we do take a very close look at this from all the departments in the City. We just want to make sure everybody has thought this out and we don't get ourselves into a real bind later on. Thank you. Jansmen: I'm Harriet Jansmen. I live at 900 Lighton Trail. I share the concerns of Jerry Havens and Mike Green, my neighbors. I wanted to mention one issue in particular and that is the ditches on either side of that street in relation to the steepness of Oklahoma Way as it comes down to that very sharp curve. One summer day, like today, I pulled a woman and child out of an overturned car in one of those ditches. It doesn't take bad weather for them to be dangerous In bad weather that corner is a danger to cars and trucks. I would like to see a requirement not just the driveway have a culvert under it but that a curb and gutter be required along the frontage of that property if there is going to be that kind of development in that area. 1 think there is an interest, not just of the residents of the area now and of the trees on the property, but of the the residents there for the safety of everyone: The driveway curves back toward the east, 99% of the exits are going to be toward the west and there is a real steep corner at Fletcher where it's also a blind comer and there has been a lot of accidents there too. I think there the street infrastructure is as inadequate as the sewer in that area I think our interest is not by definition against density close to downtown, density close to downtown prevents sprawling the suburbs but we want to make sure we don't have a Motel 6 move into a nice neighborhood. Ward: Ron, what do you think about Ms. Jansmen idea about curbs and so on along the road up there, is that something that's possible or is that against regulations? Petrie: I think it's shown minus about 10 feet on the west side, there is a culvert. Jansmen: It stops at the edge of the driveway doesn't it? The drive is pretty wide and there is culvert under the drive but then along the drive there is not a culvert in the ditch. Petrie: If you project the property lines up, and I assume you are talking about just the frontage of it, if I can show you this. Jansmen: I see what you are saying, it's a real sharp distance. If the second development to the east is built, I'm suggesting the same thing there. Petrie: I can tell you with the traffic that is a concem and I know that the streets are inadequate, the thing I don't know is what do we do and how do we assess it to this development? I left that open for discussion here. We certainly can't have this Subdivision Committee Meeting • June 28, 2001 Page 26 • • developer improve all of Fletcher Street. Davison: That's the only thing that will go in there. There is no other major huge development that's part of the issue. This is where the only huge development would go would be to service him and his units, there is no other units. There is no other R-2 beyond that section of the mountain, it's only coming up Center. So, we are doing it all for this gentlemen and his friend's development. They should carry the cost for service to their development. Petrie: We are not doing anything for them. Davison: That is my request is that you don't do anything for them. Caulk: Bob Caulk, I live on Missouri Way out there. I'm not going to say anything because everything I was planning on saying has been said by other people. I just want to make sure I get on record as saying I agree with the issues on sewers, streets and traffic. Airs: Patrick Airs, 738 Lighton. I just wanted to put a quantitative number to the additional traffic that you were estimating. With the 28 bedrooms for this particular apartment. Obviously with location there is a good chance it will be college kids, good chance you will have at least one car per bedroom, sometimes more. If we take some more realistic numbers for that location plus the additional, you are looking at a 30% increase roughly. You are saying 94 people based on 28 cars, realistically it will probably be more than that. The potential with the additional development with estimated will be the same number, maybe more, we don't know at this point. You are looking at least at a 30% plus increase. With the concern about the streets, the blind turns, it being dangerous in a car, it is going to be very dangerous to walk. To be honest there are probably more people walking up there than they are driving. All my other concerns have pretty much been addressed. Conklin: The calculation on the number of traffic is a software program from the Institute of Traffic Engineers and they do these studies all around the nation. It's not just something that staff just calculates by ourselves. Jansmen: Do they consider the demographics and population? Conklin: There are many different ways of doing it. We actually did it two different ways and we used the number of people that we thought would be living in the apartment complex versus the number of units to get a higher number. Subdivision Committee Meeting • June 28, 2001 Page 27 • Davison: My name is Sharon Davison and I have been following this from the beginning. I do live down on Rodgers Drive. I have seen from day one when they went in and removed the trees. Let's get back to the issue of R-2 zoning being the problem please because we look at all these factors, it is inappropriate for that area. We supposedly can't do anything about the R-2 fact but we can do the right thing by not allowing waivers, not granting variances. One reason 1 think this case particularly does not deserve any extra help is day one, how it started. Let's look at how it started. How did this gentlemen pick this property to develop? They looked at a map that said R-2 zoning to fit their needs. What was on that lot to begin with? There was an old one family on that. It's three lots, these two gentlemen went into business, bought together and split to do this project. What was there originally was the one house. That sort of contradicted it of this being just so inappropriate because it's labeled R-2. We want everyone to understand, we are in a very mixed use area. We have duplexes that have been up there for years. We like having mixed rental in some duplexes. There are a lot of people who turn their house into duplexes. We've tried to talk to these gentlemen and say "We understand even if you are doing this strictly for investment purposes, that duplexes are appropriate in that area even though, again the whole traffic area is very bad there." They decided not to do that. They've shown their contempt for the neighborhood by tacking on another unit to cover the expense of them having to do what they should have to begin with. I do believe I have a problem with that and hope that you all will show us the consideration. There is over 100 family owners up in that area that are directly affected by these gentlemen's plans. If you will please do the right thing and make them come up to standard to prove that they care about what they are doing. Do not grant waivers, do not grant variances. They are not appropriate. The other part is that we have a wildlife area on the back side of that mountain that's very protected. It comes up from the cemetery, stretches all the way around the south side of that mountain, we have birds and wonderful things. I believe that land will be minimized, the bird population and all those things will go down and our whole quality of life will go down in this area. I'll stop now and I appreciate everyone showing up and showing that we care about what's going on. I will say a lot more people would have been at this meeting but as you know it takes a lot of time, money and luxury to take off work and get to these type of meetings. I think our representation here shows that we care, that we don't appreciate it and there will be a lot more people at the evening meeting that most people can attend. Thank you. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: Ward: Any other public comment? Seeing none, I will close it to the public at this time and • bring it back to the Committee. • • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 28, 2001 Page 28 Hoover: Tim, are we doing any waivers or variances on this? I don't see asking for any waivers. Conklin: No. I don't believe that they are asking for any waivers on the large scale development. To build the street they need to ask for the waivers. They want to build the street in order to build the units. I need to bring something up. Looking back at the April 23rd staff report, our condition of approval limited it to six units. They'll need to reduce it down to six and that's what was approved. Ward: That's been my only concern. Not that you had the right to build them but maybe the higher density number you put in there. From economics I can understand it but this would be a lot more than what's there now. I assume it will be a very nice project like a lot of other projects you'vedone but to me it's a little bit high density. Of course I live up there. I've got to be careful about how I think about these things but I do feel like it's too high a density. That's the only thing. I'm not against the project. Schmitt: I would be glad to drop the density if the City will drop some of the requirements. Ward: I think that's a trade-off. There are a lot of rentals up there, duplexes and so on. It's a great neighborhood to live in, we all want to keep it that way. Mount Sequoyah is a great place to be. We want to try to keep it that way. There is some concern about the higher density that we are trying to put in here today. Schmitt: I understand the density is allowable up to 12 units. Conklin: In our staff report we made a recommendation to allow the access without the street, we put the condition on there based on your proposal with six units on each lot. Schmitt: If you will go back to your meeting when we first went to the Planning Commission you recommended approval on 8. Conklin: It says 6 in the staff report. "The density shall be limited to 6 units per lot. The applicant is proposing to construct one six-plex on each lot. The density allowed in R- 2 zoning is 24 units per acre by right. This equals to approximately 12 units per acre." Schmitt: At this point, based on the new information we got at the last meeting, we don't have any option other than to go with 7 units. It's still roughly 60% request of the allowable density. This is the way it stands at this point. You will need to deny us at 7. • • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 28, 2001 Page 29 Bunch: When this was zoned R-2, do we have anything on record as to when it was zoned R- 2? Conklin: 1970. Bunch: At that time, what was the allowable density for R-2 zoning? Conklin: 24 units per acre. Bunch: The same as current? Conklin: Yes. Ward: Our new R-2 regulations and policies have changed that recently which we have allowed a lot less density per R-2 for different situations, in different locations. I think that will solve a lot of problems that we are facing here today. Bunch: These are all proposed as four bedroom units? Schmitt: Yes sir. Bunch: Each with a garage? Schmitt: Yes sir. Bunch: Carport or garage? Schmitt: Garage. Bunch: Two enclosed and two outside for each unit? Schmitt: We had preferred six units with some additional parking per unit to relieve some of the concerns that were mentioned here today, the 20 foot setback request for the detention pond and the request for 30% tree canopy replacement for mature trees did not allow us to put those extra parking spots in. We would be glad to put them back in if the City decided they would rather have adequate parking than some of these trees. Hoover: On the sight lines in the topo, when you are looking at the traffic manual, how does that • come into play, you can't just take it that everything is flat? Does someone need to go I O O Subdivision Committee Meeting June 28, 2001 Page 30 Petrie: out there and do an analysis of the area and do elevations of the sight distances? That's what I understand Perry has done. There are some fairly standard guidelines on what's required. Perry usually does that for most projects to make sure they meet that. When you go out and do the study, you have to determine where the car is and where your eyes are going to be when you are pulling out and you take your sight distances from that. There are certain heights you use, I just don't know them off the top of my head. Hoover: With the Summit Avenue being so close, that's actually in the manual that it's okay to have that jog and this many people come out with an intersection and another one that close? Petrie: Hoover: This is just a driveway, it's not a street. It's not a driveway for residential. I can see for one house but because there are 94 cars per day, that increases it more than a residential driveway. Does it explain in Perry's report how he did that? Conklin: Sure. I'll read that for you. This was April 23, 2001, from Perry Franklin our Traffic Superintendent. "I checked the above location for adequate sight distance. I exited the property from the existing gravel drive to check the sight distance. The gravel drive and the 24 foot drive shown west of it would both have adequate sight distance if vegetation to the east is trimmed back a couple of feet. Both Rodgers Drive and Lighton Trail have a stop sign for westbound traffic coming down the hill towards this proposed drive. Sight distance to the west is unobscured. The drive should be located as far to the west as is practical to serve the property. If I can help you any further, please let me know." Hoover: Does it make any comment if you are traveling up Summit Avenue? Conklin: I can get with Perry again. Hoover: I think it would be a good idea if Perry came to the meeting because the neighbors are going to have specific questions for him. Conklin: Sure, I'll invite Perry. OWard: How many homes are up on Summit? • • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 28, 2001 Page 31 Conklin: I'm not sure. Davison: Six. Conklin: What I heard from Perry is the traffic on this road is fairly low and we have many roads in town that carry a lot higher traffic. Hoover: I don't think it's so much the traffic flow as the visibility. Ward: There really is not that much traffic. Hoover: The other thing Tim, is there allowed any parking on Fletcher Avenue? Conklin: No, not at this time. Bunch: On the drawing we are showing existing canopy 1.75 acres, preserved canopy 1.39 and then in our report we are showing the total size of the place is only about half an acre, which numbers do we believe? Ward: I'm not sure where this came from. Carter: I see your numbers and I don't know the answer to that. Those numbers are obviously in error. Hesse: There is also an application required. We get the numbers from the existing on the large scale. Bunch: When we do get the revised numbers on existing preserved canopy, is that going to be canopy before or after the lot was cleared? Hesse: It's after. Bunch: It's kind of hard to get 1 3/4 acres on half an acre. Conklin: You do have an application form with the numbers. Hoover: The sidewalk where it jogs around, what are those circle and squares there? Carter. They are utilities, there is telephone pedestals. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 28, 2001 Page 32 Hoover: Are those existing? Carter: Yes. Ward: This has to go to full Planning Commission. You are going to have plenty of time to make those comments before it's approved. We are just going to forward it and let the full Planning Commission look at determination and that's when we can, if there is anything that comes up as far as density levels and so on, we can discuss that. This is just a preliminary agreement, we've gone over it and looked at a lot of the concerns, listened to the public and tried to get as many things answered at this level before it goes through to Planning Commission. Bunch: Is the next Planning Commission timely enough to be able to ha+ie that information and sewer overflow information, traffic updates and that sort of thing at the next meeting? Is that time enough for that? Conklin: I think that will be enough time for Perry to get out there and look at the traffic. Dave Jurgens? Petrie: I don't know exactly what information he's got. I hate to speak for him. I guess I can present whatever we've got at the meeting and if you need more information you can table it there. Bunch: Who do we need to invite to the next meeting? Perry Franklin and Sewer Division? Will you have sufficient information to solve that information and answer it? Petrie: Let me see what we have. Ward: MOTION: It starts over again because we have nine people at the Planning Commission. It's neutral. We don't recommend approval or disapproval. Our main objective here is to try to get a lot of the problems solved before it gets to the full Planning Commission and look at some of the things that might not have come up before. Bunch: I'll move that we forward LSD 01-19.00 to the full Planning Commission including the report that have been requested and staff comments, all notes from the meetings. Hoover: I'll second. Subdivision Committee Meeting • June 28, 2001 Page 33 • • Ward: I'll concur. Thanks.