Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-07-12 - Minutes• • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, July 12, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED LSP 01-25.00, 26.00, 27.00: Lot Split (Lot 7 CMN Business Park II, Phase 1 & 2, pp 212) Page 2 LSD 01-24.00: Page 9 LSD 01-23.00: Page 11 PPL 01-4.00: Page 22 Lot Split (Foster, pp 714, 715) ACTION TAKEN Approved Approved Lot Split (Lindsey Office Building, pp 174) Forwarded Preliminary Plat (Cross Creek Subdivision LLC, pp 359) MEMBERS PRESENT Lee Ward Sharon Hoover Don Bunch STAFF PRESENT Sara Edwards Ron Petrie Chuck Rutherford Kim Rogers Kim Hesse Forwarded MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF ABSENT Fire Chief Solid Waste Bert Rakes Jim Johnson Perry Franklin Subdivision Committee Meeting July 12, 2001 Page 2 LSP 01-25.00, 26.00, 27.00: Lot Split (Lot 7 CMN Business Park II, Phase 1 & 2, pp 212) was submitted by Christopher Rogers of CEI Engineering Associates on behalf of Target for property located on lots 7 & 15 of CMN Business Park II, phases 1 & 2. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 12.73 acres. The request is to split into four tracts of 1.26 acres, 0 56 acres, 1 48 acres and 9.41 acres. Ward: Our final agenda item is LSP 01-25.00, 26.00, and 27.00, lot split for Lot 7 CMN Business Park II, Phase 1 and 2, submitted by Christopher Rogers of CEI Engineering Associates on behalf of Target for property located on lots 7 & 15 of CMN Business Park II, phases 1 & 2. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 12.73 acres. The request is to split into four tracts of 1.26 acres, 0.56 acres, 1.48 acres and 9 41 acres. Sara Edwards - Associate Planner Edwards: On May 14th, Planning Commission did approve a large scale for Target on this property. Their large scale did show some outlots which are 7A and 7B This is the official action so that those may be sold separately. 7B is the shop building that we approved along with Target. The plat does show the required tree preservation easement as it was originally approved on lots 7 and 7C. Staff did administratively approve a property line adjustment which changed the boundary down on the south side, if you remember it did do something like that. We moved this area and this area. We do have a couple of conditions to discuss We do want a note added to the plat stating "all curb cuts on lot 7A are subject to the City of Fayetteville Design Overlay District requirements and all current ordinances in place at the time of development". Right now, our Design Overlay District requirement is a curb cut cannot be within 250 feet of an intersection and then all curb cuts have to be 200 feet apart. They may not be able to meet that and that will be a condition we will discuss at the time of LSD. I did want to note informing them of those requirements. Secondly, prior to staff stamping this lot split, a tree preservation easement, approved by the City, by a separate instrument shall be filed to include the tree preservation area as shown on the April 24, 2000 unified development approval of Steele Crossing LSD. This easement shall include the tree preservation areas for both lots 7 and 15. As part of Target's approval, it was staff's intention and belief that the condition stated that a tree easement would be provided for both lots 7 and 15. Lot 15 we've already had the easement plat filed so I can't go back and get them to show it on an easement plat unless I want them to do a revised. The easiest thing to do is do it by separate instrument as well as show it on lot 7's easement plat. Everything else is just standard conditions. Subdivision Committee Meeting • July 12, 2001 Page 3 Chuck Rutherford - Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator Rutherford: At construction, the sidewalk and driveway will have to meet our current specifications Kim Hesse - Landscape Administrator Hesse: No comment. Kim Rogers - Parks Operations Coordinator Rogers: No comment. Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie. No comment. Ward: Do you have a little presentation? C.Rogers: Chris Rogers. First off, the acreage is listed in this wrong. There is actually 12.73 acres on the overall lot 7, not 9.41. The remainder of lot 7, after we do the split, will be 9.41 acres. There is a rounding issue, one outlot is 1.27, not 1.26 and the other is 1 49 and not 1.48, I want that right. The first comment about the sub lot 7A, we did discuss about the access to it. That was a kind of buyer beware note, we wanted to make sure to make it easier on the Planning staff when the buyer of lot 7A comes through that they understand about their access to the streets. We didn't want to take away any rights, we just want to make sure they understand that they are going to have go with what current ordinances are if they make an appeal. Ward: Let's look at 7A, what about curb access? Edwards: Without granting some sort of variance, they wouldn't allow one. They will have a built access coming in when it's developed. C.Rogers: The intent is, we didn't want to take away from whoever buys that lot the ability to make that appeal for a variance. We are not requesting any specific entrance at this time. Bunch: Where is that measured from? • Subdivision Committee Meeting • July 12, 2001 Page 4 • • Edwards: We have always measured it from the property line less determination of the corner. Bunch: Not the centerline of the intersection or anything like that? Edwards: No. Bunch: Technically they could probably have an entrance up on this end? • Edwards: But they cannot get it 200 feet apart from the other entrance. Ward: They will need a variance. Edwards. Right. Bunch: It's probably going to be right up in here. C.Rogers: Right. Item number two, about the tree preservation I guess we need to talk about that a little bit further. You are basically requesting by separate instrument, the owner of the Kohl's tract file a tree preservation easement on what was shown on the plan? Edwards: Yes. C.Rogers: We can make that request to the that owner. We are representing Target not necessarily the owner of Kohl's. All I can do is ask them for that or I guess have their attorneys get in touch with City staff. That's kind of out of my hands since we are not representing them. Bunch: Except that when we approved this, it was done together. Preservation for lot 15 was somewhat tied to 7. Even though there are several different entities, as far as the City is concerned, I think we are probably looking at some of this approval of having been one entity. Ward: We are kind of tied to that. C.Rogers: I'll make that request to them. They already understand what we are trying to do with lot 7 and 7C, as far as having that easement. All the attorneys are looking at the language right now. We've got a draft copy from Sara and Kim Hesse about what we want to do on the easement plat and if we are going to do it by separate instrument there is going to be other people signing it. They understand they've got that tree • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting July 12, 2001 Page 5 Ward: C.Rogers: Edwards: Bunch: C.Rogers: Bunch: C.Rogers: Bunch: Ziada: C.Rogers: preservation already there. The trick is getting the language and everybody to agree to it. They are bound with what was approved. They are obligated to do this. I agree to that too, it's Just how we are going to work out the language is still open between the staff and attorneys. I guess if there is some reason the owner's of lot 15 will not do that, then we'll need to bring it back. One of the things on lot 15, they never did build all the buildings they were supposed to build. Before those permits can be issued. Speaking of those little shops, I've had comments from handicapped, why in the world is the handicapped place all the way at the end? We have made that change, it's in the middle now. That does make a difference. The reason Kohl's had shops down on both sides, showing all these adjoining shop buildings. The shops aren't there but the handicapped places have been placed there contingent on those shops being there, so when shops didn't get built somebody looked at the parking lot plan, they string all those out and they are nowhere near the front door. We did make a slight change on the plans. I've got a letter coming to Sara, we moved the handicapped from the side of the shop to the middle of the shop and Target's got their own at their front door. The next shop on the other end has theirs in the middle also. It's kind of strange at Kohl's, you've got one way down there on the end. While we are on this 7B, you said that is shops. They can transfer title in case anybody wants to buy one of those smaller shops, 25 by 100 foot. 35 by 70, each of them. They would be retained by the same owner of lot 15, it would be a lease shop. They will not be sold separately. The way it's going to happen is kind of a strange land transaction as far as when this happens as closing, between all the parties. Right now this is currently CMN or those parties. They are going to transfer title to Target and Target is going to do land swap • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting July 12, 2001 Page 6 Bunch: C.Rogers: Bunch: Edwards: C.Rogers: with Fayetteville Exchange for the other tracts, which is the owner of lot 15. They are going to have all that go concurrently at closing. That's why we wanted to split them off because those shop spaces are not going to be built by Target, they are going to be built by Fayetteville Exchange and that's why we want to split that off at this time. What about access here for those shops? Is that access on Steele Boulevard? Yes, there is direct access in the back, there is a curb cut. It's basically exactly what we had on the LSD plans. It seems like 7B is in a different location. Didn't it used to be up in here? This whole thing was strung out on the 4 mile long strip mall. There are shops on both sides of the project. Shop A and shop B are the same we had on the LSD plans, we are just basically carving off their parking and the building. Bunch: What I was wondering about was the parking. C.Rogers: It's all going to have cross access agreements because it's the same way with the main entrance off of Shiloh. Bunch: You could get a pothole here and these guys over here can say we don't have to fix it. Ziada: They have a maintenance agreement. C.Rogers: All the parties right now are going through a common area maintenance agreement to deal with landscaping, paving, striping. Bunch: This is the part you are extending to the south. C.Rogers: They've also got the parking in the back and have access to those. They can stand along. We gave them enough parking to stand alone. Hoover: This lot 7A, is it in the Overlay District? Edwards: Yes. Subdivision Committee Meeting • July 12, 2001 Page 7 • • Hoover: Edwards: Hoover: Bunch: C.Rogers: Bunch: C.Rogers: Have you made them aware that the rear of the building... They will go through large scale. Just so they are aware when they are selling it that you will be able to view the rear all the way around this building, you can't have a back of a building on a road in the Overlay District. The same way potentially with this one. In the rendering on the LSD plans we had false windows on the side for Steele Boulevard and we dressed up the back with banding and brick work. I think that was part of the deal was that they weren't adequately described good enough whether or not they were phase lines or property lines. We had a property line adjustment to get that straightened out so that this will go a little bit better and make it look better when we did this tract split. We kind of had a domino affect where we were trying to go through each one of these. The next is to do the easement plat where we are trying to get the language provided. We'll probably get that probably in the next week. PUBLIC COMMENT: Ward: At this time I'll open it to public comment. There is no public to comment. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: Ward: Bunch: MOTION: Hoover: Seeing none, I'll close it to the public and bring it back to the Committee. Any other comments? The main thing was 7B seemed to be a different configuration than what was presented before. Also, having driveways right next to a corner. I'm going to make a motion to approve LSP 01-25.00, 26.00 and 27.00 subject to the conditions. Subdivision Committee Meeting • July 12, 2001 Page 8 Bunch: Ward: • • I'll second. I'll concur. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting July 12, 2001 Page 9 LSP 01-24.00 Lot Split (Foster, pp 714, 715) was submitted by Nathan McKinney on behalf of Roy & Mona Foster for property located at 3330 Cato Springs Road The property is in the Planning Growth Area and contains approximately 22 38 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 20.1 acres and 2.28 acres. Ward: Edwards: Ward: McKinney: We are going to start off with LSP 01-24.00 submitted by Nathan McKinney on behalf of Roy & Mona Foster for property located at 3330 Cato Springs Road The property is in the Planning Growth Area and contains approximately 22.38 acres The request is to split into two tracts of 20.1 acres and 2.28 acres. Like you said this is on Cato Springs Road. Cato Springs is a collector on the Master Street Plan and requires 35 feet from centerline and there is 40 existing, so there is no additional right-of-way requirement. This is in the Planning area so, there is no parks fees or sidewalks and all of our requirements have been met. Nathan, do you have any kind of presentation? I'm here. You have a copy of the survey I'm sure. I'll be happy to answer any questions but it's a fairly simple lot split. It has a great deal of frontage on the state highway. That home that you see on the survey is the old home. PUBLIC COMMENT: Ward: Is there any public comment? COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: Ward: Bunch: Petrie: McKinney: Bunch: Seeing none, I'II close it to the public and bring it back to the Committee. These are the ones that I think staff ought to approve administratively. They keep wanting to bring it to us. It says the City Planner can do this, not the Planning Commission. The only question I have, since this is 2 28 acres, does a PERC test come into play? I think the requirement to have all that up front is an acre and a half. We do have a satisfactory PERC test and a design already for a single family dwelling. The back lot line, does that extend down into the creek bed or does it stop short of it? Subdivision Committee Meeting • July 12, 2001 Page 10 • • McKinney: It stops just short of it. Ward: Any other questions9 MOTION: Bunch: I'll move we approve LSP 01-24.00 at this level. Hoover: I'll second. Ward: I'll concur. McKinney: -The • only other comment I have, if there is any way that this process can be streamlined or quickened. The time period can cause a great deal of hardship on both buyer and seller and I know that there are requirements that need to be looked at but if they can be done in a more speedy fashion they would really help a lot of people. Hoover: How long has it taken to get to this point? McKinney: About six weeks. At this time of year it hasn't hurt us bad because of weather but, as you know, if we got into a six week rain spell this thing could be delayed several months. If there is any way it could be sped up by a week or two, it's my suggestion. Subdivision Committee Meeting • July 12, 2001 Page 11 • • LSD 01-23.00: Large Scale Development (Lindsey Office Building, pp 174) was submitted by Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Lindsey Company for property located north of Joyce Street and south of Stearns Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 5.85 acres with an 82,420 sq. ft. office building proposed. Ward: Bates: Our second agenda item is LSD 01-23.00, a large scale development for Lindsey Office Building submitted by Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Lindsey Company for property located north of Joyce Street and south of Stearns Road The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 5 85 acres with an 82,420 sq. ft. office building proposed. We'll go ahead and get a presentation from the applicant. Jeff Bates, Crafton & Tull. I hope we've made all the changes and necessary revisions from Plat Review. Other than the fact that we do have a pond within 100 feet of the building and our signs, I don't know if you've seen a copy of they way they are. I don't if that's going to take a variance. Ellis: Daniel Ellis, Crafton & Tull. Sara Edwards - Associate Planner Edwards: You remember we did review this for Commercial Design Standards back on June 11th by the entire Planning Commission and it was received favorably, that they haven't changed anything on to my knowledge. This is Just east of the Mcllroy Bank on Joyce Boulevard, six story office building with 275 parking spaces and 6 bicycle parking racks. That is exactly what is required by code. It's completely surrounded by C-2 zoning and they are dedicating the required right-of-way as required by the Master Street Plan. We do have a few issues on this, however, I think we can resolve them and we are recommending approval at the Subdivision Committee level. They are requesting a waiver from Section 5.4.3 of the City's Drainage Criteria Manual and the regulation is a permanent lake cannot be within 100 feet of a structure, it's 72 feet from the structure. That's a waiver of 28 feet. Staff is in support of the requested waiver. They are not showing the required trees for the Commercial Design Standards, which they are in agreement with. I'm Just putting that requirement on there because they are not showing 1 per 30 feet along Joyce and Sterns. Ward: Ron, on this regulation we have about the 100 feet from the structure, that would be more in line with residential/apartments and so on, it wouldn't be commercial buildings/office buildings and so on. Subdivision Committee Meeting • July 12, 2001 Page 12 Petrie: I agree with you and I wish that was clarified in the ordinance but it just says buildings. Ward: We need to change the regulations on this particular thing. Is there any way you can get that brought to the City Council and draft a revision of ordinance on that? Edwards: It's Ron's manual. Petrie. It's certainly something we can look into. I'll get with the City Engineer and see if we can get something. There is two or three that we continually have waivers on. Ward: Office building is a lot bigger than a residential apartment complex where you have kids and all that. They shouldn't have to be looking for a waiver on this type of thing. Petrie: I agree. Bunch: Can we address that waiver at this level or does it have to go to the full Commission? • Ward: It's going to have to go to the full Commission. That's what I'm saying, we need to do something about that. • Edwards: Beyond that, Planning Commission determination of required off-site improvements to Sterns Road. Sterns is a collector on the Master Street Plan. They didn't show the limits of where the construction stops but it's pretty much south of where their driveway is, where the existing road ends. We are recommending a 28 foot wide street with curb and gutter on both sides and a sidewalk on the south side be constructed adjacent to this property all the way up to their property line. If curb and gutter is not existing on the section of the street that's already constructed adjacent to the property, it should be required. Bates: How wide a street? Edwards: 28 feet. Bates: Do we have enough right-of-way? Edwards: I believe it was 25 on both sides. Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards. Like I said, we reviewed the building, however, no sign was shown on the site. Staff is recommending that the applicant provide a monument sign which is 6 foot tall, 75 square feet. I didn't have a chance to look at Subdivision Committee Meeting • July 12, 2001 Page 13 • that. It looks like it's a little bit tall. Ellis: Do we need to get a variance for that particular sign? Edwards: If you cannot meet the monument sign or freestanding sign ordinance, either one, you have to go the Board of Sign Appeals. The Planning Commission will need to make a recommendation whether they support the sign. There is one other issue, I didn't include it as part of this report. Vantage Street is a collector street that runs to the east of this property. We have assessed another property, which is First Security Bank, for the construction of Vantage Street. Here is the property in question, here's Vantage Street and here's where First Security Bank was. We determined an assessment of $8,000 for them. I wanted to make you aware of that. We are not recommending an assessment for this property because the way that the calculation for First Security was made, we couldn't determine an assessment on this, it didn't call out how much the street cost and what percentage of the street that they were required to do. It was difficult for us to assess this on a street that was not adjacent to this site. It's been done in the past and I wanted to make you guys aware of that. At this time, we are not recommending anything. Petrie: Except for the construction of Sterns which goes past there. Hoover: You are saying this street here, what is this street? Edwards: Yes. It's a collector street called Vantage Street. Hoover: Does it exist? Edwards- No. Hoover. Where is it on the vicinity map? Edwards: They are not showing it. Hoover: Where would it be? Petrie: Do you know where they built the Post Office, they stubbed out Vantage Street when the built that and it Just stops. • Hoover: The Post Office is adjacent to this? • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting July 12, 2001 Page 14 Petrie: I believe there is a property in between. Hoover: So this is a proposed street but you are saying that these guys over here had to pay? Edwards: Right, they were assessed for that. Hoover: Why is that? Edwards: I'm not sure. We went over it, we were having difficulty why that was. Hoover: Usually it's only if you are adjacent to the street. Edwards: If you did want to make an assessment, from the figures we had, the best I could tell based on the acreage, if I divided it by acreage, it would come to $23,400 to equal what First Security paid. Hoover: How long ago was it that they did that? Edwards: 1998. Hoover: Has anyone else had to? Edwards: They are the only one. Fugitt: It appears where the tradeoff is, we are improving both sides of Sterns when we would only have to improve one. Edwards: A lot of that is because it's not existing. That 14 foot street is unusable. That's our take on that. That is your determination to make. Everything else is standard. Chuck Rutherford - Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator Rutherford: They are showing curb lines through the sidewalk and driveway, they need to be removed. Jeff, that island needs to be moved behind the sidewalk. The other question is, at this corner, why is it showing like this? Ellis: There is a big box culvert right there, big drainage area coming in. We are going up over the top of that culvert. Subdivision Committee Meeting • July 12, 2001 Page 15 Rutherford: I don't think there is a sidewalk existing here. In the field we can look, at that to see if that's the best option, it may be. The other thing, the sidewalk needs to be added to the legend. Kim Hesse - Landscape Administrator Hesse: I could be wrong, this is concerning the comment about the tree planting. I know in the Parking Lot Standards they are allowed to group 25% of the landscaping, which is why there is not one every 30 feet. They've got the number of trees if you spread them out. They are between the parking and the right-of-way, it's grooved which I would recommend an awning That's concerning proposed landscaping, I have no issues with current landscapingThey've met all the interior parking requirements. As far as tree removal, they are basically, the share of the tree removal in the right-of-way didn't count and they really aren't removing trees on their property. They've made concessions on putting retaining walls in to protect the trees. Even though it shows they can't get the replacement, they started with that amount. • Ward: The condition about planting trees every 30 foot intervals, is that something you want to do away with or do you need to still look at that closer? Edwards: That's fine. I think we can. It does say in the Commercial Design Standards... Ward: It looks like this is going to have to go to the full Planning Commission anyway so we'll make a finding before then. Kim Rogers - Parks Operations Coordinator Rogers: No comment. Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie: Along the southwest side, go ahead and make that drainage easement, street to street there. Installation of that pipe will require you to get approval from McIlroy Bank since you are going to be doing some grading on their property and I see you've got some proposed inlets and pipes on their property. Bates: Those are all existing. • Ellis: All we are doing is putting a junction box right there to tie into those old pipes. Subdivision Committee Meeting • July 12, 2001 Page 16 • • Petrie: That's why it makes it look like you are doing the whole thing. Let's go ahead and make that a drainage easement. Since this is a new sewer pipe that's going to be installed on site, we need a 20 foot utility easement. The drainage application form, get me that signed by the owner instead of the engineer. That's all I have. PUBLIC COMMENT: Ward: At this time I'll open it up to the public. Does anyone have public comment on this particular issue about the Lindsey Office Building out on Joyce Street? COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: Ward: Seeing none, I'll close it to the public and bring it back to the Committee. Do you have any other presentation that you would like to make? Fugitt: Ward: Fugitt: Ward: I have a question regarding the signage. This is unusual in that the wings on the first floor will be almost to the strip center in nature. Those are lease spaces for restaurants, retails shops or whatever and, on the signage issue, I know we are limited to a six foot monument sign but we wind up having possibly multiple tenants there who are going to request or desire signage on the street. I'm just wondering how we go about looking at different options to provide signage for a multiple tenant situation. They'll have a chance to put some on the building. As far as having six more monument signs out there, I'm not sure that's going to work. This property is zoned C-2 and it's not in the Overlay District and we've allowed other kinds of signs. I'm not saying we want a pole sign out there but maybe some kind of sign that has multiple tenants on it. I was thinking in the nature of Evelyn Hills type sign with multiple tenants. We allowed across from Spring Creek where Home Depot and Dixie Cafe are, that type of monument sign. Fugitt: Is that done through a variance? Ward: How do they do that Sara? Edwards: If they can meet the freestanding sign ordinance, it won't take a variance from the Board of Sign Appeals. It doesn't look like they can meet that height. Subdivision Committee Meeting • July 12, 2001 Page 17 Bates: There is no way we can get 75 square feet, it needs to be bigger. Edwards: It's still limited to 75 square feet and they can't meet that. Ward: Are you going to have any signs on the building at all? Fugitt: Yes. There will be identification signs on the strip centers, above each tenant. Ward: Do they need to go to Board of Adjustments? Edwards: I would like it to go to the full Planning Commission to make a determination if the signage is acceptable as part of the Commercial Design Standards, it's not large and out -of -scale. If you can make that determination then it will go to the Board of Sign - Appeals and have to be approved for the variance. Ward: How far back will this sign be sitting? • Fugitt: This monument sign we proposed today is setback Just enough to be out of the sight lines. That's just a six foot monument sign at each entrance. • Bates: That's where it was going to be but the one we are proposing now is going to be back somewhere in this island, two of them, 15 foot off the right-of-way. Fugitt: Similar to the sign you are speaking of at Spring Creek. That I think is more what we are after. Ward: I would rather have one sign like that than a whole bunch of signs. This property is all zoned C-2. If it was zoned R-0, it would be a different situation than being C-2 and with a lot of smaller retail shops situated on the same property. I don't think something, to me, our normal monument sign is normal for a one or tow stories building tall but when you get a building that's six stories tall, I don't think it would look out of proportion for it to be a little bit bigger. Edwards: I just want to get this straight, you want this sign as well as an additional sign for single tenants? Fugitt: I guess I'm asking about options right now. If we did come back with discarding that monument sign altogether and proposing one monument or one freestanding sign similar to Spring Creek or along those lines. What is the process we need to go through to see Subdivision Committee Meeting • July 12, 2001 Page 18 • if that is possible? Edwards: If you can get it ready for Planning Commission, you can request approval at that time. If not, we can send you back later which is fine. Hoover: I didn't think we approved anything, I thought we just had a discussion. Edwards. For signage? Hoover: No, Commercial Design Standards. Bunch: I thought what we were looking at is the height, whether or not it fits in the neighborhood and that sort of thing and a conceptual agre ment just to say it looks good, we don't have problems with it. We didn't approve Commercial Design Standards Edwards: You do have an elevation of the building in your packet. Look at that and make a determination. Ward: At full Planning Commission meeting, when this comes up, do we need to have a list of items as far as type of materials and colors that they are going to be using? Edwards. I have discussed that with them, they are going to do that. Fugitt: We have some of the materials defined right now. We are still making some selections on that. I can tell you and we could supply those to you. I'm waiting right now on samples of glazing. We have selected a brick which is the same brick as what's going on the convention center. Ward: A lot of time we like to see a board of materials. That way when we approve it and it comes back totally opposite we can see what happened. That's the only reason I bring that up. Hoover: We need to be consistent, we usually ask for that. Fugitt: When do you need that? Edwards: The Planning Commission meeting is July 23 and I would like to have it for Agenda • Session on July 19th. Subdivision Committee Meeting • July 12, 2001 Page 19 • • Ward: We don't need anything elaborate. Just an idea of what you are going to use plus materials and colors. Bunch: I was driving around out there yesterday and I noticed that across Sterns there is two places side by side that are divided, the parking lots meet except for one little curb in there. It's like you have to pull out on the street and pull into the very next one. I was hoping that we could avoid that. Is there any there could be access through to McIlroy Bank so a person doesn't have to pull out to a busy street and cause traffic congestion? Is there any way you can you work with McIlroy and get cross access? Bates: We wouldn't meet our parking requirements because we would have to lose spaces. Bunch: Which would we want more as a city and community, give up a few parking spaces, it's an arbitrary figure or lessen a safety hazard? Bates: Stems isn't real busy right now. Bunch: Not now but it could develop out. Right across the street, on Sterns, it looks ridiculous to have one little curb running from the front of the parking to the back separating two adjacent lots, therefore, unless they jump the curb they have to get out on the public road and go back in. Ellis: That existing drainage pipe that's running through there will probably present a problem. It might require removing all of that and relocating it, off site drainage. Fugitt: I think that we might be able to give up parking spaces a lot easier than McIlroy can. If you go by there during business hours, they are pretty packed. Bunch: Another question I have, on the proximity of the curb cut to McIlroy and the curb cut to the building on Joyce Street, is that within proximity limits with what the Traffic Division recommends? Edwards: Outside the Overlay District it's only 30 feet. Bates: It's about 50 feet. Ward: That would be something you might want to look at, that connectivity to the bank, to me that's important. If you can get connectivity without building a bridge. We don't mind, we'll give a variance on a few less parking places, if needed, to get that Subdivision Committee Meeting • July 12, 2001 Page 20 • • connectivity. Can see what we are talking about? If you are going to have retail shops, you would like people going over to the bank and getting their money and coming over to shop. You might look at that. Talk with Gary to see if you can come up with something. Edwards: They do have cross access showing to the east Ward: That's great. MOTION: Hoover: I would like to make a motion that we forward this to the full Planning Commission, LSD 01-23.00 subject to the new comments that were made today, the elimination of number two, and comments from Engineering and Sara Edwards. Ward: The main thing is this sign, it's going to be hard to come back later on and get the type of sign you are talking about when all these retail shops are wanting something like that. Edwards. Do you have any feeling on the construction of Sterns, is that something you can recommend and the assessment for Vantage? Bunch: I would gladly trade the assessment on Vantage for Sterns and also, on the sign, I concur with Lee on that. It's not that much out of scale compared to the building but also for the other things along that street. Yes it is out of scale according to the ordinance but then when you compare it to the building, if you setback far enough so it doesn't block traffic. Hoover: Was the ordinance written to be in relationship with the building being built? Bunch: It's in relationship to the street. That's why I make the comment that if it's set back far enough where it doesn't create a sight hazard. Hoover: I would just say, just be sure to bring a couple options Bunch: Large and out -of -scale applies more to signs affixed to buildings. I'll second. Ward: I'll concur. Ron, look into changing that waiver. Subdivision Committee Meeting • July 12, 2001 Page 21 • • PPL 01-4.00: Preliminary Plat (Cross Creek Subdivision LLC, pp 359) was submitted by Brian Moore of Engineering Service Inc. on behalf of Cross Creek Subdivision LLC for property located east of Sunshine Road and north of Highway 16. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 32.35 acres with 100 lots proposed. Ward: Our next item on the agenda this morning is PPL 01-4.00, preliminary plat for Cross Creek Subdivision submitted by Brian Moore of Engineering Service Inc. on behalf of Cross Creek Subdivision LLC for property located east of Sunshine Road and north of Highway 16. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 32.35 acres with 100 lots proposed. Sara Edwards - Associate Planner Edwards: That has been amended to 97 lots. The property shown as phase I was recently annexed and rezoned back in March. Phase II was what we forwarded to City Council Monday night. Right now we are only approving phase I. This subdivision will connect into Bridgeport by means of New Bridge Road There are two Master Street Plans adjoining this development, New Bridge is a collector and Sunshine Road on the west side is a principal arterial. I did include a map to show the connectivity which we had to draw because all these subdivisions are pretty new, showing the different phases of Bridgeport connecting into Fieldstone Subdivision. I want to draw your attention to that. We are recommending this be forwarded to the full Commission. We have several conditions to discuss. Number one is, the final plat shall have a note that "all retaining walls construction shall be shown on the building permit, be setback two feet from the right-of-way and have the approval of the City Engineer". I just mention that at this time so that it's in our notes for when the final plat comes around it will be included. The Sidewalk and Trails Administrator is recommending that sidewalks be placed on both sides of all streets, including residential streets, pursuant to Master Street Plan standards. They have got 50 foot right-of-way on all streets which is our local street standard, but they've put a 24 foot street which is a residential street standard as opposed to the 28 foot wide street on a local street. If they had 40 foot of right-of-way instead of 50, they would only be required to have the sidewalk on one side. They've chose to use 50 feet of right-of-way and are requesting sidewalks on one side and Chuck is requesting sidewalks on both sides. Aside from that issue, Cannondale is a local street and does need sidewalks on both sides. The two in question are Stepney and Knollcrest. A sidewalk shall be shown on Sunshine Road south of New Bridge Road to include a 6 foot sidewalk and 10 foot greenspace. Note number five shall be changed to depict the right-of-way on residential streets as 50 feet. Lots 4, 11, 82, 35 and 36 shall be dimensions at the 25 foot building setback line. I'm Subdivision Committee Meeting • July 12, 2001 Page 22 • • having an issue being able to see if they are 70 foot wide and we don't want to create a non -conforming lot. There is some talk about phasing this into more phases than just the two and they do need to show the phase lines on the plat. The agreement with the downstream property owner, Eugene Nottenkamper, to increase storm water runoff onto his property shall be made a part of this preliminary plat approval. He has agreed to that and there is a letter in the packet. The water service for the subdivision shall be served from the Bridgeport Subdivision and the waterline on Sunshine Road located to the south of this proposed subdivision. Assessment in the amount of $19,400 for sanitary sewer improvements to the Hamstring Creek Basin shall be paid prior to final plat approval and that is 97 lots at $200 per lot. Planning Commission determination on improvements to Sunshine Road. Sunshine Road, like I said, is a principal arterial. Staff is recommending that Sunshine Road be improved directly adjacent to this development by the east side being widened to meet local street standards and that's a 28 foot street with curb and gutter, and the west side widened to meet County standards which is 10 foot from centerline with an open ditch. If improvements are needed to sanitary sewer lift station number 7, that are caused by the additional flows from this development, the cost of those improvements shall be borne entirely by the developer. A note shall be placed on the plat specifying that access is prohibited from Sunshine Road. The developer is required to submit a study on Zone A to FEMA, that's this zone A right here. That determines that the base flood elevation is the floodway and the floodplain. That does need to be amended on the map by doing a map revision prior to them submitting a final plat. That way the final plat will show the new established flood lines. Maintenance of all open space, including Zone A, will be provided by the property owner's association. The vicinity map doesn't show all the new subdivisions out there, I would like them to add that. I would like the Planning Commission to make a determination of the adequacy of connectivity to existing and future subdivisions. They do have a connection into Bridgeport off New Bridge Road and to the south of Cannondale drive, which that property is not developed and is not connecting to anything at this time. Final plat for this subdivision will not be accepted by the Planning Division until the final plat for Bridgeport Phase VI has been approved and filed, which will be the construction of New Bridge Road. A minimum of 2.43 acres shall be dedicated as park land. The proposed dedication is in the County right now. Like I said, on Monday we did forward an annexation to City Council. If that annexation is not approved, they will have money due in lieu of land. Preliminary plat approval to be valid for one calendar year. Approval of this project does not guarantee that sewer capacity will be available at the time of individual lot development. Subdivision Committee Meeting July 12, 2001 Page 23 Chuck Rutherford - Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator Rutherford: Humbard: Rutherford: Humbard: Rutherford: Humbard: Rutherford: Humbard: I've got some concerns and questions about the way it's drawn. One question that I have is on New Bridge Road, you are showing 70 foot of right-of-way to New Bridge and a 4 foot sidewalk. On both of those you've got New Bridge North and New Bridge South, yet you are showing a 4 foot sidewalk on one and a 6 foot on the other, why is that? I'm Phil Humbard with Engineering Services. We really intended for that to be equal on either side, whatever the standard is. 70 foot right-of-way requires a six foot sidewalk. We'll show it as six foot on both sides. One thing that we were talking about the right- of-way, we still may change that to the 42 foot right-of-way on those little cul-de-sac streets. We had a little problem with some other things that caused us not to be get that. On the Coldwater Circle, I don't see any reason not to go ahead and put it on both sides, it's just one lot of sidewalk can make that connect up there but on Stepney and the other one over here on Fallbrook, we would like to only have it on one side. May I ask the reason why? Mainly cost of not having to put it in on both sides. If we make the right-of-way what the standard is we would meet the ordinance too. I'll add this comment. I get calls in my office quite a few times with new subdivisions and ask "Why does my subdivision not have sidewalks on both sides of our street?" Many times the answer to that is "It wasn't required when your subdivision was built." A residential street on our Master Street Plan doesn't require it on both sides. We have subdivisions in the City of Fayetteville who have both a 24 foot street and put sidewalks on both sides. We also have subdivisions in the City of Fayetteville that require sidewalk on one side and once the construction started the POA required sidewalks on both sides. It's not that big an issue but it Just seems like if we were meeting the ordinance and we go to the correct right-of-way, we ought to have the option. Rutherford: If you go to the 42 foot right-of-way that's fine. Subdivision Committee Meeting • July 12, 2001 Page 24 • Humbard: We haven't made up our mind to go to the 42 foot but, if we do, we would like to retain that option and not have to build it on both sides. Rutherford: If you do go to the 42 foot right-of-way and have sidewalks on one side, I would request that those sidewalks start or stop at a property line. You are showing on 83 in the middle of the lot and that doesn't work well in construction. Humbard: Rutherford: Humbard: Rutherford: Kim Hesse - Hesse: Kim Rogers Rogers: Humbard: Rogers: The driveway is going to get in the way, right? It's not so much that, a person moves in there and there is only sidewalk on half of their yard. Stop at lot lines, okay. Property lines, whichever. Like Sara said, there is a couple of places that it is required. Cannondale, lots 46 through 51 and along lot 52 and then also on Sunshine, lots 91 through 97. Landscape Administrator I have no additional comments. - Parks Operations Coordinator The annexation and rezoning is going to City Council. Parks has not determined for sure how much park land is going to be required or where that's going to be. Since this is over 100 units and 40 acres, it must go to City Council for a combination of land and money. If it goes to full three readings in City Council, the next one will be October 16th. We need to have, it must state the floodzone area and floodway and floodplain that must be designated, not dust floodzone I'll need a copy of the construction plan. Also, our Parks Superintendent will not sign off until annexation and rezoning has been gone through. If it does not pass then the recommendation of the Parks Board is money in lieu. We will not sign off until park land has been dedicated. That was our agreement with Parks, that hasn't changed since then? No. • Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Subdivision Committee Meeting • July 12, 2001 Page 25 • • Petrie: A few additional comments. One thing that might be brought up on the final Planning Commission conditions of approval, Just so you are aware, there is a new waterline along Sunshine, it's on our Master Water Plan and there is a possibility that we'll cost share to upgrade that to a 12 inch. That decision has not been made. One thing that we would like along with the improvements to Sunshine Road is the actual improvements to the crossing at this floodzone A. Since we do have an agreement with the downstream property owner, that pipe will be insufficient, we would expect that to be brought up to standards. When the phasing is added, if you could look at that phasing and make sure the way your sewer is laid out that that is really the way you want to phase it. Some lots here would required this whole thing to be built. Maybe you can feed it from a different direction, I don't know. Just so we don't have to come back and change all of our phase lines and what's included. I you can look into that a little more. There are some easements that still have 71/2 feet, they need to be widened. Humbard: What that's trying to show you is, it's 71/2 feet this side but the other side of the easement is all the way to the lot line here. Petrie: It needs to be 10 feet from all utility lines. That runs the whole distance there. Last comment, you show these access roads in the backyard manholes, we need one back there between 13 and 14. That's all I've got. Humbard: The original plat up here on lot 6 and 7 in the future phase, I know we are not talking about that right now, the comment was they wanted to provide connectivity to the adjacent property undeveloped property. We would really like you to reconsider that location right there. That is the most beautiful spot on the property right there. There is a bunch of huge trees and a natural draw that comes through there. The property we are trying to access has a trailer house right at the end of that road and there is another one right off of that. Nobody knows what the development of that property is in the future but Sunshine Road up here is the access to it currently. Ward: What do you propose? Humbard: I'm just making a plea not to require it to make access. If you go out there and physically look at it you will see what I'm talking about. Williamson: We originally had a radius there because of the presence of that draw. Not overstating it, not only is this probably the most pristine part of this whole piece of property but our access that will go to the parks area, which will be shown when we revisit you, is in this area as well. Putting a street to nowhere at that point right now, especially with two Subdivision Committee Meeting • July 12, 2001 Page 26 • • new manufactured homes on this single piece of property just across the draw here, this street would come to their front yard. The fact that the street will be there an unlimited amount of time and really in a very bad place, whether you are a land planner, whether you are an engineer, whether you are a City building a street there, that's a bad place to have a street just to have a street just in case. I think it would be better served, this property if you look at it and I'm not trying to put it off on somebody else but if you look at this property because it is across the draw in a sense and because there are services coming out of Bridgeport, the easement across that property, this property would be better served from Bridgeport or from the street to the north eventually. Ward: I think we could leave the easement there and never do anything more and save the greenspace. Bunch: I think the concept called to have a connection there but I don't believe the connection was specified at this particular point. If a person looks at where the road is on Bridgeport, it's back up this way, when you redraw your lines and put the road in there, yes it curves and the draw comes up and the street in quite a pretty spot but I don't believe there's been a stipulation that says connectivity has to be at that point but just in that area. Humbard: We only have lot 167 of Bridgeport, that's already basically developed. All we have is at the northeast corner on up and we can't go any further north and only have one lot south. Bunch: Where is the connectivity that Bridgeport had to supply? Edwards: If you look on this map that we drew it on there for you with New Bridge Road, it comes down from Bridgeport and connects into this. Bridgeport didn't know that there was going to be development on this side of them and that was just a stub out for them too. That is kind of how these things work. Hesse: I think what we would lose if you built this road here, obviously the grading would have to come down. Bunch: I understand that's a poor place. I didn't look at the map correctly. I was thinking there might be a possibility of putting it somewhere down in here and avoid that area. Humbard: That would be a better location. Subdivision Committee Meeting • July 12, 2001 Page 27 • • Hoover: Humbard: Hoover: Anything north of lot 167. It would be a strange intersection. Is it possible to get on these maps, this on here, I have a hard time. I've drawn it on here for myself to see where it's all connecting. This is great having this on here but you don't have this part on here. It doesn't show the roads. It's hard to talk about access and aisle width without having everything on the same map at one time. Just to avoid issues like we had last Planning Commission. Is there any roads to this side or this side? Edwards: Sunshine is right there, coming around and it meets up here. Hoover: This is built right here? Edwards: Yes. Hoover: Is this a road right here? Edwards: I don't think so. I think that's an easement. Bunch: You are not showing the pump station. Hoover: There is nothing down here through the chicken house. We have the connection here and this connection is already here ready to go, is that it? Edwards: Right. Humbard: That's my plea, to not require that connection up there or allow something to be shown as... Ward: We can show it as is. We've done this in the past where we've shown it and just allowed it to be never finished off. Edwards: I can accept an assessment for it and not have it built at this time. Bunch: Right now we only have one access to Sunshine, could we possibly take that and put it over on the west side because what we are looking at is access to this. Subdivision Committee Meeting • July 12, 2001 Page 28 • Humbard: Ward: Humbard: Edwards: Humbard: Bunch: Edwards: Petrie: Humbard: It would be in the curve there. What's the property like to the south? Currently, a veterinarian owns that and he owns that angular piece of property. The back portion is available for development. The property on the front is more of a commercial establishment. Comment number six talked about phase lines and I did make up a new drawing showing what the proposal is. Phase one will be built along Sunshine so it will not have connection to Bridgeport at that time until Phase two is built. I thought that would be better as a stand along subdivision to come off of Sunshine, easier than if we had to access it through Bridgeport. We've had some comment about making phase two phase one but it seems like we are relying on the infrastructure to go in. It might be better to improve Sunshine and do the stuff that needs to be done. Ron's got some comments that make sense about the sewer and water and we'll address those. I would like to bring it to your attention that Sunshine is not paved. We are suggesting that they pave it, it's not paved to the south. It's not paved and we are recommending they pave it adjacent to their side. It's paved up to this 40 line here from the north. Not to speak for anyone else but we have talked to the County Judge and he has indicated there is a lot of pressure for him to do something with that road pretty soon. Not really looking at this future phase but would that be a part of that to make sure the City side of it, once it's been annexed, to City standard. Right. We'll have to add some conditions, the way this is phased, make sure that happens up front, with Phase one. The cost is staggering when you look at it. The other note was about number 17, why with this phasing that would apply. I'm sure they are under construction right now and they will be well done before us. Edwards: The most adequate access is from Bridgeport. Sunshine, although it is paved is not • very wide, it's gravel. The most adequate access is going to make circulation better for • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting July 12, 2001 Page 29 this subdivision from Bridgeport. Humbard: I can understand when we get to phase two. Edwards: Now that they've shown us these phases. Bunch: What about the waterlines? Petrie. I think what we talked about, with this phase one would require the connection to Bridgeport, this waterline ran fed this and there is another waterline that runs down here. There is a gap in there that's two inches. We would want the connection of Bridgeport and that waterline to feed this phase one. When they've moved onto the other phases we would want this line extended by a quarter mile with a six or eight inch line that runs up from Wedington. We want that connection for anything past phase I. Bunch: Bridgeport would have to be approved on final plat before that waterline can be tied into? Petrie: Unless they decide to come up from Wedington and make that connection. There is still an option. Humbard: Bunch: 1 don't think it's going to be a problem but I just don't want to wait on somebody else. With your one year limitation on the ability to proceed, to be waiting on somebody else to get their water done. PUBLIC COMMENT: Ward: At this time I would like to open this to the public. Would anybody like to speak on this particular issue? Ziada: My name is Bassam Ziada, I live on 46th Avenue I live about half a mile from this site. My main concern here is traffic. This is over 100 units being built. Wedington and Highway 16 is four lane. As far as the Master Street Plan, is that going to be a four lane? Edwards: It's a state highway. We don't typically do anything with state highways. If the State Highway Department has just done all those improvements. I would imagine there is probably not plans to widen it. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting July 12, 2001 Page 30 Ziada: Ward: Edwards: Ward: Ziada: Ward: Bunch: Edwards: Roe: Petrie. It takes me five to ten minutes to make a right turn. I would like to see a process, sometime in the future, that addresses the traffic issue on developments. Not just trees and sidewalks, I think traffic is a major issue that needs to be addressed somehow. Our problem is the State Highway Department is really becoming a big issue, as far as everybody is mad and upset, the State Highway Department is hard to get them moving. All these roads are ten years behind. There is a problem with eight o'clock and five o'clock, they will only improve it when there is a consistent problem throughout the day Every day, twenty-four hours then they'll look at it. When it's only an issue for 30 minutes in the morning and 45 minutes in the evening. Sure but roads and highways are infrastructure and when the City grows the infrastructure has to be modified. That's a major issue. One of the main problems is they are in Little Rock. We send all our money down there and we get a little trickle of it back up here. We would gladly work with the Highway Department, the Highway Department is so independent they don't want to work with the City except when the want to. In the Subdivision Committee we usually don't have those types of findings in front of us and they usually get addressed at the full Planning Commission. We are doing an impact fee study so that based on the number of units we might have a road for every new subdivision. Joyce Roe. I live on Sunshine Road My concern is the sewer substation. What affect is this housing development going to have on that? There have been some problems in the past and I'm concerned about the future. That is one reason why we added this condition of approval number eleven which states "If improvements are needed to sanitary sewer lift station #7 that are caused by additional flows from this development, the cost of those improvements shall be borne entirely by the developer." The problem with this lift station, I got a memo from OMI on this thing, we've got a pretty bad infiltration problem coming to this lift station. When it rains there is a possibility it reaches capacity and I believe it has. When it does rain we get the water in our sewer lines which causes that lift station to reach capacity. Subdivision Committee Meeting • July 12, 2001 Page 31 • • When it's not raining, it's only at 50% capacity. There is plenty of actual capacity in the lift station. It's not a problem with the lift station, it's a problem with the existing pipes going to the lift station. Hoover: Are the existing pipes on the list to be improved? Petrie: We've got several million dollars every year. Hoover: In this particular area It seems like if you were adding capacity when it rains it could take less rain to cause a problem. Petrie: That's correct. I will get you something from David Jurgens. I'll read you the memo I've got because I've got the same questions: "The request for capacity of lift station 147 to add an additional 97 residential lots, the capacity of this station will allow the addition, at this time, in dry weather and normal loading conditions. However, during high rain events the station reaches about 100% of total capacity. There have been several overflows at this station during rain events in the past year. Water and sewer crews are working towards breaking the inflow, however, at this time, there is still a lot of rainwater getting into the system." That's what I've gotten so far but I can tell you what's being done when I get with Jurgens. Bunch: Is Bridgeport also connected to this same station? Petrie: Yes. Bunch: On this condition here, how well can number 11 be defined if you have two subdivisions that are adding units, as more and more people tie in, how do you determine who bears the cost? Is it going to be traceable? Petrie: I think that's certainly a valid question. It will be traceable on additional capacity used to make up for this. Bunch: You wouldn't want it to be so ambiguous they thing they've got a deal and it winds up in court in four or five years and nothing gets done to take care of needs of the people in the area. Petrie: That's really the reason why I added it so that there wouldn't be any question. We know where it sits right now. This is going to have to be studied a little bit more detail before we can approve any final plan. I know for sure there are different states with Subdivision Committee Meeting • July 12, 2001 Page 32 • • this problem. The overflows that we have had, we report those to the state so they are monitoring this situation at this lift station too. Bunch: What we probably need to say on 11, can you rewrite it based on capacity during normal weather and dry weather? It just says "if improvements are needed", that's kind of a catch-all to say everything that needs to be done, during the infiltration problems, during rain events. I would like to see that clarified so that we have it to do with the design capacity during normal operating conditions rather than be so broad that we get hung up on what happens during a rain event. Petrie: Does that answer your question? Roe: As long as you are aware of it. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Ward: Is there any other public comment? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the Committee. Hoover: What would be an option here if there has to be improvements, do you put in another lift station? Petrie: Not necessarily. You can have larger wet wells, more capacity, more temporary capacity so the pumps can catch up with it and get it out of there. Ward: It doesn't have to do with the size of the pumps, does it? Petrie: Sort of. The size of the pumps at that peak hour. We don't want to improve the pump so big that we run into problems in our low flow which is your normal day. Hoover: You mean they can temporarily fix the problems until the lines are relaid? It just seems like that could be quite costly to the developer. Petrie: It could, but we don't want the situation to get out of hand, they are going to make it worse. Hoover: What would the cost be? Petrie: It would be hard to determine at this stage. Subdivision Committee Meeting • July 12, 2001 Page 33 • • Hoover: When are you able to tell? Petrie: Before us and the State will approve the plan for the additional. This whole thing will have to be studied completely. Hoover: Even if we approve it, it's going to the State to be approved. Petrie: Yes. We had to go through that on Bridgeport. Hoover: The developer is aware of all of that? Petrie: Yes. What we have to do is show that we reduce the infiltration on this lift station. Ward: It's something that the City is always doing? Petrie: Yes. Ward: It's a problem that we already have. It's not going to cause something new, it's already there. Petrie: It's a ongoing budget, a few million dollars every year go for the infiltration. Bunch: On Mount Sequoyah where we had the lateral, A and B or 1 and 2. Petrie: That has that too. Edwards: I would like to add a condition. Could you provide me with a new project disk, one having the legal description for just this phase one and showing your new street alignments. Bunch: These shaded areas here that appear to be accesses to manhole covers, it's not that well defined and it's using the same legend as sidewalks. Normally when we see these drawings it usually says they have to have truck access. I was wondering if those are paved roads or oversized sidewalks or what? It's hard to tell from the drawing. Humbard: They are the truck access. Note number 10. Edwards: It's just gravel. Subdivision Committee Meeting • July 12, 2001 Page 34 • Petrie: Gravel is acceptable. Bunch: The legend shows that they are the same as the sidewalks. Another question is on this up here, the owner/developer is different than this. Humbard: The north property is the property that's currently being annexed and rezoned, it's currently owned by Alice Simpkins Trust. We have an option to purchase that property based on the annexation and rezoning being approved. Bunch: I knew that these would be coming through. By having so much on here and not having phase lines, it makes it a little unclear. Also on note 12, where you are showing various lots that do not have access to New Bridge Road, what about lot 80, should that be included? Humbard: Yes. Bunch: Where it's the access only from the Knollcrest Circle? Usually there is a note to maintain that access. The people who purchase the lots know that they can't block off that access. Petrie: if you look back on my comments from Plat Review, the standard note is in there. Humbard: We have a lot of them in the back yards and we've tried to put them all to the front so we can make it easier on everyone to get to. It's just one or two of them it was impossible to put it up higher in the lots. Petrie: I've got "fences will not be permitted across existing sewer lines that will block access to existing manholes and provisions will be provided to allow access to all manholes". Humbard: Is that on existing or on proposed also? Petrie: From what I see on existing, we are okay. You've got the manhole here and it can be accessed from the south and these can all be accessed to that common area, so I think we are okay. Ward: You've got quite a bit of work to be done. Do you think you can have all this done by full Planning Commission meeting? • Edwards: The revisions are due by July 16`" and the meeting is July 27`h. Subdivision Committee Meeting • July 12, 2001 Page 35 • • Humbard: Yes. Ward: Petrie: Most of these are minor type changes but it sounds like you are also considering doing a lot of changes. Did we ever make a final agreement of what we want to do about that stub out on the northeast corner? I guess we need to look at it. My idea was we could put on there leave it greenspace and not do concrete for curb and gutters and so on and leave it as an easement and leave it natural. Is there any reason we couldn't do that? I didn't comment on any of this because it's a future phase. I know you are kind of looking at the concept. I would have some serious problems if they built up to the property line, the way this is shown in that they would have to basically dam up half this hollow. We've got the water from Bridgeport flowing through here. As a matter of fact we have a pipe that ends about right there. There would be a lot of problems to do this. I think that's a good idea and I don't think it could be done the way it's shown. Edwards: At the time of connection it could be made possible to build that. Petrie: Yes. I just wouldn't want half of it built out into that hollow and stop. Humbard: Could it be made that if the adjacent property is developed then if they don't require to make that connection, they can revert back to the adjacent lots or something? Edwards: Yes, we can always process a right-of-way vacation. Ward: It would be a vacation at some point in the future. Humbard: It's a hard spot no matter where we put it because of that ditch and the way everything is laid out there currently. Hoover: How will this neighbor be impacted by this downstream property owner? Petrie. Mr. Nottenkamper, about a quarter of a mile is the large creek, Hamstring, we've got all this large flood zone across this property. The peak flow will be increased significantly across his property. Hoover: What does that mean could happen? Could it flood more of his property? Petrie: Yes. Subdivision Committee Meeting • July 12, 2001 Page 36 • • Hoover: Does he understand that? Petrie: Mr. Nottenkamper is a large contractor in the area, he's very familiar with development and he's involved with it quite a bit. I've personally discussed it with him. Roe: Will that affect the other side of that creek? My property is on the other side of the creek. Humbard: Mostly just the ditch between Sunshine and Hamstring Creek. The way the flow is, this basin will be totally drained before the large basin has the peek come through there. He'll see instantaneous increase across his property but the Hamstring Creek will continue to rise and this one will already meet it's peak and be going down before that happens. That's what we have been talking to him about. The conditions Ron and I haven't talked a whole lot about, the way he wants to treat this pipe as it comes underneath the road, just from the experience that he has and he's got a world of experience. He has a little drive over here that he wants some stuff done with. That was his conditions when I talked to him about it. Petrie: There is little details about the agreement to be worked out before I can approve those plans. Ward: As far as the public is concerned, this is going to the full Planning Commission also. There is definitely public time to voice concerns at that meeting for sure. Petrie: You are welcome to schedule an appointment with the City Engineering office any time and I would be glad to sit down with you. Roe: I didn't quite understand the overflow of the creek. Does it flow down that way? I'm talking about where the bridge goes across Hamstring Creek. Petrie. The vast majority of this subdivision will flow back to the west. It will not go to that point. Roe: Okay. Petrie: You are more than welcome. I would be glad to meet with you. Subdivision Committee Meeting • July 12, 2001 Page 37 • • MOTION: Bunch: I move to forward preliminary plat 01-4.00 for Cross Creek Subdivision to the full Planning Commission subject to comments and the minutes of this meeting. Hoover: I'll second. Ward: I'll concur.