Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-08-02 - Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, August 2, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED LSD 01-24.00: Page 2 LSD 01-25.00: Page 10 LSD 01-26.00: Page 16 PPL 01-4.00: Page 20 ADM 01-33.00: Page 27 Large Scale Development (Shiloh West Apartments, pp 440) Large Scale Development (Cliffs Phase 3 P.U.D., pp 526) Large Scale Development (Cliffs Phase 4 P.U.D., pp 526) Preliminary Plat (Fairfield Subdivision LLC, pp 359) Administrative Item (Lindsey Sign, pp 174) MEMBERS PRESENT Lee Ward Sharon Hoover Don Bunch STAFF PRESENT Sara Edwards Ron Petrie Keith Shreve Kim Rogers Kim Hesse Tim Conklin ACTION TAKEN Forwarded Forwarded Approved Forwarded Tabled MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF ABSENT Fire Chief Solid Waste Bert Rakes Jim Johnson Perry Franklin • • Subdivision Committee Meeting August 2, 2001 Page 2 LSD 01-24.00: Large Scale Development (Shiloh West Apartments, pp 440) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Jim Lindsey for property located on Shiloh Drive, south of Chamberland Square Apartments. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 18.25 acres with 240 units and a club house with amenities proposed. Ward: Good morning, welcome to the Subdivision Committee meeting for August 2, 2001. We have five items on the agenda this morning. We'll start with LSD 01-24.00 for Shiloh West Apartments submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Jim Lindsey for property located on Shiloh Drive, south of Chamberland Square Apartments. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 18.25 acres with 240 units and a club house with amenities proposed. Edwards: I think that we all know where this is located but I'll explain. It is south of Chamberland Square and Wedington, it will run into Betty Jo and Persimmon. They are dedicating 35 feet of right-of-way for Persimmon which is a Master Street Plan street that is not existing right now and they are going to build that. They are also dedicating trails as a parkland dedication, a 10 foot strip along Persimmon and a 12 foot strip along Shiloh. As far as the tree canopy goes, there is 20% of the site covered in tree canopy and a lot of that is where they are building Persimmons, so it will be reduced to 12.38% with 10.66% replacement, bringing the total canopy to 23%/ Conditions: The developer shall deed the trail areas as shown on plat to the City Parks Division prior to building permit approval. Upon receipt of the deeds staff will determine the exact amount of Parks Fees remaining. Preliminary figures have determined that $80,812.50 will be due, based on a dedication of 0.49 acres. We are not exactly sure, because we haven't gotten the deeds on the amount that will come to, we think it will be about .49 acres Again, that will depend on when we get the final deed for the final land amount. Floodplain development permit will be required prior to any grading in the floodplain. They are requesting a waiver from Section 5.4.3 if the City Drainage Criteria Manual which states "Permanent lakes with fluctuating volume control may be used as detention areas provided that the limits of maximum ponding elevations are no closer than 100 feet horizontally from any building" They did have a letter but I didn't get it in here. Planning Commission determination of required offsite improvements to Persimmon Street. Persimmon is a collector on the Master Street Plan. The applicant is proposing to construct a 36 foot wide street adjacent to this property connecting Betty Jo Drive and Shiloh. I would like the plat labeled large scale development and tree preservation plan. All the other comments are standard. Subdivision Committee Meeting • August 2, 2001 Page 3 • • Keith Shreve - Sidewalk and Trails Shreve: They are meeting all the requirements. Thank you for working with us on the parkland dedication for the trail area Ward: We are getting parkland dedication along Persimmon and Shiloh both? Shreve: Yes. Conklin: Keith, I thought we talked about having the sidewalk on Persimmon Street come back in on the southwest side so it lines up and it doesn't go into that back yard. I think the Commission can see that on their plans. Jim Lindsey is proposing to build the collector street 36 feet wide all the way over to Betty Jo to provide that connection where Betty Jo currently dead -ends. They worked with the parks department and is going to dedicate that 10 foot strip to do a trail and eventually, if Persimmon Street continues and we have continued development, we'll be able to connect these trails and sidewalks all the way over to the new Fayetteville Boys and Girls Club. This is one of the developments that's building that street towards the Youth Center. Bunch: Conklin: Ron Petrie - Petrie: Hennelly: Petrie: Persimmon will also extend on over to the proposed complex by the sewer plant? Eventually, yes. Staff Engineer On condition number two, I would like to add approval from the Corps of Engineers. On the tree preservation, I think you are going to have to revise that to get your discharge pipes out of these ponds. I would like to see that revised before the plan is approved. Take that into account. Also, on the proposed intersection of Persimmon and Betty Jo that will need to be aligned differently. That's not the alignment. We would like the standard "T" intersection. Hennelly: That's the way it will be. Petrie: Is this overhead electric, it's showing an easement, is that exclusive electric easement? Subdivision Committee Meeting • August 2, 2001 Page 4 • Hennelly: No, it's an exclusive overhead electric easement that we are going to have rerouted and put underground. Petrie: That's all I've got. Ward: Ron, out there on Betty Jo we have a lot of water that always stands around Jewel, is there some way to get that water out of there and over to this creek? Petrie: That's one thing we have been looking at. The first thing, how this affects that problem. We've got some studies going on to fix it. Ward: Will this property have the same kind of problem? Petrie: What this property will do is take a lot of the drainage that's going there away from there. The second thing is trying to coordinate maybe a cost share with them to fix what you are proposing. If you see between the second building south of the north line along the west, they have added a drainage easement going through there, we are probably going to try to cost share to get a pipe through there and over to Betty Jo to pick up a lot of the drainage in the rear and along Betty Jo. More than half of this site now drains to where you are talking about. When they put all this in they will divert it back to this tributary that's created. That will alleviate a lot of the runoff they are presently getting. To answer your question, it won't fix it completely but it will help a lot. Ward: I've noticed there is a lot behind those five-plexes and four-plexes over around Jewel Street and behind Betty Jo, the water stands there all the time. Petrie: One of our other engineers is doing the drainage study on that. I don't know a whole lot about it personally but we can coordinate this through him and see how much we can cost share and fix. Conklin: One of the City Aldermen requested that the City look at how this development could help the situation on Betty Jo and that came up at City Council. The easement, one thing that we are looking at is to be able to cross this property and Engineering is doing their study. With all this drainage, half the drainage currently going that way, diverting that back to the creek, back to the east, hopefully that helps alleviate some of the water back in there. • Ward: While we are thinking about it, on these detention ponds, I haven't seen how far they • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting August 2, 2001 Page 5 are away from the residential buildings but it looks like they are looking for a variance on that. Petrie: I didn't get a copy of the letter either. Ward: You're not ready to address that either? Petrie: No. I understand they are taking some additional safety precautions on that Ward: We'll need you to decide whether it's something that will work. On commercial I'm not too worried about it but once we go to apartments and children, I worry about the detention ponds right up against the units. Petrie: If it was just a detention pond it would only be a 20 foot setback requirement. If it was just a lake, there would be no setback requirement. If you combine the two there is 100 foot setback. We want to clarify that and that's something we are working on. Strangely, our drainage manual, the City Engineer can revise himself but we can't grant any waivers from the drainage manual. Ward: Is this something that should have some privacy wood fences around part of it? Petrie: I think in some areas it's awfully close to several of these buildings. I'm not sure what's being proposed. Fuggitt: They've used some wrought iron as opposed to wood. Bunch: Wood blocks your line of sight to see if there is a child in there in trouble. Kim Hesse - Landscape Administrator Hesse: As stated in the report the main reason the canopy is being reduced is the improvements to Persimmon. They made an exception and moved the buildings to save the trees from the initial concept. We are grading into the tree line to the west but when I look at the health and condition of those trees, it doesn't make sense to ask for a retaining wall. They would be spending a lot of money for trees that won't survive much longer. There are two rare trees, one is being preserved, one is may be able to work in the final construction plans, it's in the area of the sidewalk. We'll deal with that as we get more detailed. Other than that, everything is fine. • Subdivision Committee Meeting • August 2, 2001 Page 6 • Ward: On Parks and Recreation we have a figure of $80,812 plus a dedication of almost half an acre, is that pretty much worked out? Kim Rogers - Parks Operations Coordinator Rogers: Is it .49? Hennelly: We are working on the legal description for that right now. I'll have that to you by the end of the day, I hope. Rogers: That affects your credit on how much is owed. Ward: Tell us your name and if you have a little presentation? Hennelly: I'm Tom Hennelly with Jorgensen and Associates. Most everything that is an issue here has already been addressed and worked out. The way the site is being graded will help the drainage problems that are occurring over on Betty Jo considerably. In addition, we've shown the drainage easement to help the City alleviate the remaining problem that we are not solving by regrading this site. Other than that, I think we've worked out everything the City staff has raised as a concern. PUBLIC COMMENT: Ward: At this time I'll open it up to the public, is there anyone here that would like to make public comment. Is there anyone here that would like to make public comment on this particular item? COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: Ward: Seeing none, I'll close it to the public and bring it back to the Committee. Hoover: Is Shiloh Drive right along here, where is it on the plan? Hennelly: I should have labeled that centerline. Hoover: On the vicinity map, Jewel Road is not connecting to anything and then I see this detail here which is really nice, are there any other roads up there? • Bunch: There is another apartment complex that we recently approved that's already been built Subdivision Committee Meeting • August 2, 2001 Page 7 • • is there. No bike rack is shown. Hennelly: There is bike racks shown right here instead of in that floodplain. We've got it right there by the clubhouse. Bunch: Could we distribute those around to areas where people could use them? Conklin: I believe it says they should be located within 50 feet of the front door. Do you have a problem putting bike racks throughout the development? Hennelly: I'm not sure what the requirement is. Shreve: It's based on parking. There is another development where they kind of disbursed them throughout the development. Hennelly: We've got 400 spaces. I wouldn't imagine it would be a big issue with him. Ward: For the bike racks to work they need to be closer to the units, not just by the clubhouse. We don't know whether they will get used or not but that's what we are hoping for. Hennelly: We can distribute them more, I'll just give you a call and we can work that out. Ward: Can we figure out how many bike racks that needs to be? Conklin: They have six, that's the ordinance requirement. They have enough. They don't have to be on a concrete pad or anything, they can be in the grass. Hennelly: That shouldn't be a problem at all. Bunch: Can you distribute them one per each block of buildings or something like that? Hennelly: Yes. Bunch: Also, on handicapped places, you don't have a handicapped in front of this unit right here and the legend calls out 21 and actually shows 22. You are not showing one by this unit, you are showing an extra one here and here, it actually comes out to 22, where you are calling out 21. Subdivision Committee Meeting • August 2, 2001 Page 8 • • Hennelly: That's no problem at all. Bunch: When you have the handicapped accessible spots, what happens if you don't have people with handicaps? It cuts down on parking because this is the very minimum for so many bedrooms. When you wind up with so many for handicapped, you might say it's inadequate parking. Hoover: I would check with the regulations. There is too much speculation. Let's spell it out. Bunch: What we are looking at is one parking space per bedroom assuming everyone has a car. It doesn't leave any parking spaces for visitors and if we don't have a full compliment of handicapped places we actually have fewer spaces than we have potential for cars. We have that flexibility to go over. I'm really in favor of trying to put more and more parking in and more asphalt but, at the same time, we don't want to create a conflict. Conklin: We can take a look at Mr. Lindsey's most recent projects and parking and see what's happening. With so many people coming and going here, with jobs and students... Bunch: In the fall when they are at full occupancy would be a good time to check to satisfy our curiosity and looking at our regulations what a good number is for the percentage of utilization in an apartment complex so we can get a handle on it. Kelso: We just recently did a project and he did an analysis of several apartment projects, at night time when they were full. He's got some numbers that he can share with you. Conklin: That saves my staff time, 1 appreciate that. Bunch: I just wondered if there were some national numbers on it or something. Edwards: I did talk about requiring an access easement through Chamberland Square for that road connecting, I don't know if you addressed that. Hennelly: Yes, on the inset there it has a 50 foot access. Conklin: You say that but do you have a document from the property owner? Hennelly: Mr. Lindsey called yesterday and he was in the process of getting that signed. Subdivision Committee Meeting • August 2, 2001 Page 9 • • Conklin: We'll need that prior to Planning Commission. It's critical that if you are going to have access to your development through someone else's property that we know it's really going to happen. This is not a public street up here, it's a piece of private property, part of Chamberland Square apartments that they are crossing, going up to Jewel. That's the plan to have access off of Jewel, access to Betty Jo and Shiloh. Keep in mind that Shiloh is one-way south. Hoover: When I first looked at your plan for accessibility, I couldn't tell it connected in another place. Just be sure that when you do Jewel, you are showing it connecting this creek bridge, so everybody is clear about that. Conklin: With regard to your sign, since we are looking at it right now and we haven't really addressed that, we'll need to give you a recommendation on that at Planning Commission. They are showing two on the private drive and two on Persimmon. I'm not opposed to the sign, I just want to check the ordinance specifications. Ward: They can really get confusing what apartment complex you are in. You have a letter we are going to get at full Planning Commission on the detention pond/lakes? Petrie: MOTION: Bunch: Yes and I'll have a recommendation ready I'll move we forward LSD 01-24.00 Shiloh West Apartments to the full Planning Commission with additional comments at this meeting. Hoover: I'll second. Ward: I'll concur. Subdivision Committee Meeting • August 2, 2001 Page 10 • • LSD 01-25.00: Large Scale Development (Cliffs Phase 3 P.U.D., pp 526) was submitted by Chris Parton of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Cliffs No. 3 LTD Partnership for property located at 1935 E Cliff Blvd. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 32.27 acres with a planned unit development for 288 dwelling units proposed. Ward: The second item on our agenda this morning is LSD 01-25.00 for Cliffs Phase 3 P.U.D. submitted by Chris Parton of Grafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Cliffs No. 3 LTD Partnership for property located at 1935 E. Cliff Blvd. The property is zoned R -I, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 32.27 acres with a planned unit development for 288 dwelling units proposed. This is an expansion of the Cliffs Planned Unit Development which was approved as a concept plat on June 23, 1993. This project was not a part of that concept plat and therefore is required to obtain specific Planned Unit Development approval from the Planning Commission. This phase of the development will access Cliffs Boulevard and Happy Hollow Road. There is currently 38% of the site existing in tree canopy, the applicant is preserving 28% of the site in canopy. The requirement is 20% preservation. Edwards: Cliffs Boulevard is running to the north and currently there are some apartments, if you come off Highway 265 that's the one with a big entrance. Happy Hollow which comes down from Huntsville Road, that is already constructed up to Cliffs. Conklin: Tyson Mexican Original is on the southeast corner of Happy Hollow. Hoover: This is going to the south of what's built now? Conklin: It's Dr. Seddon's property. This is an expansion of the Planned Unit Development that originally came through in 1993. Edwards: The only issue is that Planning Commission does have to grant the requested density bonus on the Planned Unit Development. With 50% open space they can have up to 9 units per acre and they are requesting 8.92 and I did include that section of the code that talked about the bonus density and open space. They do have 52.8% open space. That was the only issue that we had. Keith Shreve - Sidewalk and Trails Shreve: Sidewalks are existing. Subdivision Committee Meeting • August 2, 2001 Page 11 Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie: No comments. Kim Hesse - Landscape Administrator Hesse: No comments other than to thank the developer and engineer for working with me on it. It's a beautiful sight. Ward: Where is that big high line running through there? Kelso: It comes up through here, overhead electric, and then it turns. Bunch: Is there one that comes across the south? Kelso: It is but it's south of this property line, it's down in here somewhere. • Bunch: When we go out and look at these, before anything is on the ground, those types of things help on the vicinity map. That is a pretty good landmark. Kim Rogers - Parks Operations Coordinator Rogers: If he can add the owner's phone number. Parks fees are $108,000 for 288 units. Conklin: That will be going to City Council next Tuesday for approval. Any time you have over 40 acres or 100 units, the Council has to approve money in lieu of dedication of land. Ward: If the applicant can go ahead and introduce yourself. Kelso: Ward: • Conklin: I'm Jerry Kelso with Crafton, Tull & Associates, representing the owner, Mr. Underwood. This is Just an expansion of what he's done out there already. It's a highly upscaled apartment project, I'm sure you guys have seen it out there, and we want to continue that look with the amenities of the pond, golf course. In this particular area we've save a tremendous amount of large trees. Other than that, I'll entertain any questions you might have. On R-1 zoning you can put this kind of units? You can approve multi -family in R-1. We don't see too many planning unit Subdivision Committee Meeting • August 2, 2001 Page 12 • developments, I want to make sure that the Commissioners understand what you are doing here. "The purpose of a planned unit development is that you have more efficient use of land, more efficient use of public facilities, more usable open space through structure grouping and other design techniques and preservation of appropriate and natural physical features." That's the purpose of what we are trying to achieve here with a planned unit development. The Planning Commission will have to make a finding or grant approval of a density bonus for additional open space, that is not by right any more. There was some confusion in the past whether or not they automatically could increase their density above R-1, above 4 units per acre. You'll have to grant that approval and it states here "In addition to the dwelling unit density otherwise permitted", it's 4 units per acre, "a density bonus for additional open space may be allowed at the option of the Planning Commission up to the following maxima, in the R- 1 District or setback area in all districts." 50% open space permitted, dwelling units per acre is 9 units. They are within that, they have the open space preserved but it's at your option. They did talk to me in advance of submitting this planned unit development and we did talk about whether or not to go through the planned unit development or the rezoning. In my opinion, the planning unit development would allow open space and allow more preservation of rare landmark trees on this site. There is a 250 foot setback required along the perimeter which we discussed initially and they are showing that. There is no multi -family units within 250 feet of the boundary of this planned unit development. Also, they are saving 50% open space. That's where we are at today. We have a planned unit development that's zoned R -I and they have the percent open space that's required for the Planning Commission, at your option, to grant that density bonus. Something to consider that you'll have to make that decision. Bunch: Do you feel it's better this way than rezone with the new zones? Conklin: If we do that, with regard to open space, it will eliminate those requirements. Bunch: Leaving it R-1 and taking advantage of the discretionary measures in it actually increase? Conklin: I think so. If you think it's appropriate to grant the density bonus for this type of use, I think bringing it through this planned unit development with 250 foot setback, which you wouldn't have once you rezone it, you would have your standard setbacks. This makes it more compatible with adjoining property because now you have a 250 foot buffer between this multi -family and the R -I . A lot of it is being preserved with tree canopy. • Kelso: Everything to the north of it, what we originally did before, is under the same type of Subdivision Committee Meeting • August 2, 2001 Page 13 • deal. Conklin: It's already got 2 sides to the north and east are an R-1 PUD approved in 1993. Ward: I assume if it was left R-1 and they put 125 or 130 homes on it, by the time they put in all the streets and so on there would be a lot of trees that have to be taken out. Conklin: That's typically what we are seeing. On R -I subdivision, in the end when you build the house it's removing more trees than when you do something like this. Ward: This is something you recommend? Hesse: Yes, I support this. PUBLIC COMMENT: Ward: At this time I would like to open it up to public comment. Is there anyone here that would like to address us today from the public? COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: Ward: Seeing none, I'll close it to the public and bring it back to the Committee. MOTION: Hoover: I make a motion that we move this forward to Planning Commission, LSD 01-25.00 for the Cliffs Phase 3 PUD, subject to the comments today. Bunch: Before I second I have some comments. We do need a better vicinity map, not only on this one but the next one to come up. This one is fairly straight forward because it has some major street frontage across it, the one that follows has a private drive. Kelso: Are you wanting kind of a blown up area of what's happening right around it? Hoover: What's existing, what's been built and where Cliffs Boulevard is on here and all the streets that you've got. What's confusing too is the phases usually, if you could spell that out. • Kelso: I can probably do that. Subdivision Committee Meeting • August 2, 2001 Page 14 • Bunch: What you are probably looking for is similar to what's in our packets when we go before the full Planning Commission where we get the mile circle and that sort of thing. Kelso: Hoover: Kelso: I can do whatever you guys want. Just so it's clear to an outsider. What I will probably do is have this overall vicinity map, another one that goes up in that area. Hoover: In relationship to what's already built. Bunch: Also, on the bike racks, you show one up here and here and there. I was wondering if these two could possibly be more centrally located so it can serve the units better? Other than that, the distribution seems pretty good throughout the project. The object is to get them as close as we can to where people are parking their bikes. Kelso: Kind of how we got these other ones. Bunch: Yes. Those look good. It's actually across and it really needs to be on this side and more centrally located. We are not going to get within 50 foot. There is an existing drive that goes down by a split rail fence, where is that? Kelso: This is probably what you are looking at. It's a new drive they graded. It comes right down here exactly. It goes down the intersection and the road comes by. It intersects about right there and this one is shown. The existing doesn't really go anywhere? Bunch: Kelso: Bunch: Kelso: Bunch: Kelso: No. It used to tie into here but when they did the street improvements, we changed their access to this point. I can sketch a little line in there. Also, on the property lines, is this a property line here? That is a property line that they are purchasing from Mr. Seddon. They own everything • else to the east and north. Subdivision Committee Meeting • August 2, 2001 Page 15 • • Bunch: Kelso: It appears that this is outside the property line. What's the deal there? They own that property also. This is part of the original Cliffs property. They are purchasing this piece from Seddon. Bunch: Your legend shows the property line as a solid line rather than intermittent dashes. It's rather difficult to tell on the drawing because what you are indicating as the property line is not what the legend calls out as a property line. Kelso: Bunch: Conklin: I see what you are saying. We will correct that. I'll second. One other thing I should mention, this structure right here is the historic Betty Lighton house. They plan to preserve that and possibly use it as some type of clubhouse. Kelso: We really don't know yet. We are going to preserve it. If you get a chance to look at it inside, it's a neat deal. Bunch: Kelso: There are two structure over there, is the other structure going to go away? The other structure is a horse barn, it's a new structure that's been built to look like the other one, it's not the old Lighton house. That will be removed. Ward: I'll concur. Subdivision Committee Meeting • August 2, 2001 Page 16 • LSD 01-26.00: Large Scale Development (Cliffs Phase 4 P.U.D., pp 526) was submitted by Chris Parton of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Cliffs No. 4 LTD Partnership for property located at W. Sapphire. The property is zoned R -I, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 11.05 acres with a planned unit development for 60 dwelling units proposed. Ward: The third item is LSD 01-26.00 for Cliffs Phase 4 P.U.D. submitted by Chris Parton of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Cliffs No. 4 LTD Partnership for property located at W. Sapphire. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 11.05 acres with a planned unit development for 60 dwelling units proposed. The findings are: This is a portion of the original concept plat that was approved by Planning Commission on June 25, 1993 that granted the requested density bonus. This project is located north and west of the existing Cliffs apartments. Access will be provided from Sapphire Drive which is currently under construction. The recommendation is approval at the Subdivision Committee level. Conklin: This is part of the original planned unit development that was approved in 1993, this is the additional phase. My interpretation is that the concept that was approved in 1993 which granted the variances and the density bonus still applies as part of this development and therefore, even though the ordinance did change, that 1993 concept was approved at that time showing multi family units within this area. Therefore, we are recommending approval at this level. There really aren't any other conditions to address or discuss at this time. This is in addition to their ongoing development of their original planned unit development. Ward: On this future development is completed there will be more than one access in and out of these units? Conklin: With regard to the public street Sapphire Drive? Petrie: When the whole thing is completed it will affect the way it's going to tie back into Happy Hollow. Keith Shreve - Sidewalk and Trails Shreve: No comments. Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer • Petrie: No comments. Subdivision Committee Meeting • August 2, 2001 Page 17 • • Kim Hesse - Landscape Administrator Hesse: There are no rare trees being removed. Kim Rogers - Parks Operations Coordinator Rogers: $22,500 is due. Ward: Why don't you give us your name again? Kelso: Jerry Kelso with Crofton, Tull & Associates, representing the owner Bill Underwood. This is just 60 more units that we are going to construct at this time. Sapphire that ties onto Highway 265 is under construction, will continue Sapphire to the west to where it ties on, you'll also have access to the south through the other phases of Cliffs. This just adding on as we are continuing to develop this piece of property. Ward: Kim, on these tree preservation areas, are these areas that were taken on a restrictive deed or just shown as always being on the plat as being preserved? Hesse: We haven't done that. That is something that is going to be proposed. PUBLIC COMMENT: Ward: At this time I would like to open it for public comment. Is there anyone that would like to make comment at this time? COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: Ward: Seeing none, I'll close it to the public and bring it back to the City. Bunch: About the dumpsters, in the existing development, when that was built was screening required? All those dumpsters are unscreened. If the rule for screening dumpsters came in after the development was built that's another story but if it supposed to be done, I think we need to have that as a condition of approval to make sure that screening has been put in around the dumpsters on the existing and for this unit. Conklin: We'll have to take a look at that. Typically we try to screen them from public streets. I think the screening was a requirement and we can go out there and look at what was approved. Subdivision Committee Meeting • August 2, 2001 Page 18 • Bunch: Conklin: It may be that's a private drive. That's what we need to take a look at. If screening needs to be done, we'll get a letter to Mr. Underwood and Lindsey. Kelso: The property owner is Underwood but he's in partnership with Lindsey. Bunch: The other one was fairly easy to figure out but this one was not as easy. Kelso: Again, I was looking at the overall big picture. Bunch: The same thing on the bike racks, make them a little more centrally located. Kelso: We can put that on our construction plans. Bunch: I had a question on the tree preservation areas, I can see where one set of rules might apply to this but on the one we just looked at we forwarded it to Planning Commission because it's a different piece of property and we are going to be looking at that for P.U.D. status. I think we need to make sure something addressed on both of these is to make sure that those trees are preserved, since everybody went to so much work. Kelso: Are we required to do something on that? Edwards: Yes. I put as a condition on 8B where prior to the permit I always require an easement plat and I did put with the tree preservation area shown. Hesse: It's not deeded over. Bunch: Make sure it's a recorded document. MOTION: Bunch: I'll move we approve LSD 01-26.00 for Cliffs Phase 4 P.U.D. at this level subject to the comments. Hoover: How many parking spaces can we have and only have one way in and out? Is there something in our ordinance? • Conklin: We don't. Subdivision Committee Meeting • August 2, 2001 Page 19 • • Hoover: Something came up where we were looking at a parking lot that had one way in and out but didn't have very many spaces and that seemed to be an issue with people. It doesn't seem to be an issue with apartments which I thought was kind of curious Conklin: Hoover: I know what you are talking about. The other thing, on fire vehicles, is this any problem? How would they manage? Do they just pull in and back out? Conklin: We send the plat out to all the different departments and divisions and we ask them to respond if they have concerns regarding design. Hoover: I was told one time that they have to be able to make a move. I didn't understand why one project they did it and on others they didn't. Kelso: Fire trucks can maneuver in and out pretty easy. Hoover: I'll second. Ward: Do we have some kind of regulation for the length of a cul-de-sac? Conklin: 500 feet. Petrie. Sapphire Drive is a public street. Hoover: Right. Ward: I'll concur. Subdivision Committee Meeting • August 2, 2001 Page 20 • • PPL 01-4.00: Preliminary Plat (Fairfield Subdivision LLC, pp 359) was submitted by Phillip Humbard 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 97 lots proposed. Ward: The fourth item on the agenda is PPL 01-4.00 for Fairfield Subdivision submitted by Phillip Humbard 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 92 lots proposed. The findings are: This property, shown as Phases I, & II, was recently annexed and rezoned to R-1. The property shown as Phase III is currently in process for annexation and rezoning. There are two Master Street Plan streets adjoining this development. New Bridge is a Collector and Sunshine Road is a Principal Arterial. Access will be provided through Bridgeport Subdivision by means of New Bridge Road, and by Sunshine Road which connects Mount Comfort Road and Wedington Drive. Sunshine Road is paved from Mount Comfort up to the future phase of the subdivision and is gravel up to a small portion which is paved near Wedington Drive. The recommendation today is for approval subject to the conditions listed. Conklin: I actually pulled this from your Planning Commission agenda at your last meeting. I was very concemed over their proposal to do phase I only on Sunshine Road and not connect into Bridgeport Phase VI, so I asked them to come back to Subdivision Committee to discuss their phasing plan. What I wanted to try to avoid was having a subdivision that the only way to get there is off of Mount Comfort Road at this time and any of our trash trucks, emergency services or other type of services that are within this subdivision will have to go all the way back around and over to this area. That's why I brought this back forward to you. They have changed their phasing and we've met with them. What's proposed is for phase one to be constructed first, that's going to adjoin Bridgeport Subdivision. Once Bridgeport is complete the road will be extended into this area and provide access. You would have continuous urban development adjacent to urban development. That was the main issue. The Planning Commission, on condition number two, "Determination of improvements to Sunshine Road Sunshine Road is classified as a Principal Arterial on the Master Street Plan with the City Limits located approximately along the center of the road Staff recommends that Sunshine Road be improved directly adjacent to this development with the east side of Sunshine road widened to meet local street standards and the west side widened to meet county standards. These improvements shall be constructed before the acceptance of Phase 11." This report is for the entire development. Our improvements are for them to improve half the street and improve Sunshine Road to Subdivision Committee Meeting • August 2, 2001 Page 21 • • county standards on the west side. Conklin: Okay. Phase one would occur first which would not require them to do any work on Sunshine Road. We want them to do phase two and then those improvements on Sunshine Road next. That's how the phasing would work. Number three, the right-of- way for New Bridge Road and Sunshine Road shall be dedicated to the City prior to the acceptance of Phase I. What we are asking for is let's, at this time, get this right-of- way connected out to New Bridge Road and the right-of-way for Sunshine Road. I just want to make sure. Say phase one is built and nothing ever happens, if there is a need to extend that street we have the ability to get that street extended out to Sunshine Road I'm just trying to guarantee that will happen. Number four, the agreement with the downstream property owner, Eugene Nottenkamper, to increase storm water run- off onto his property shall be made part of this approval. They plan on discharging their storm water runoff into this tributary which goes onto Mr. Nottenkamper's property and is going to increase the flow. They need his permission to do that. Number five, the water service for this subdivision shall be from the Bridgeport Subdivision and the waterline on Sunshine Road located to the south of this proposed subdivision. The second waterline connection shall be made before the acceptance of Phase I. Number six, recommendation from the Planning Commission to participate in the upgrade of approximately 1,250 L.F. of proposed 8" waterline along Sunshine Road to a 12" waterline as shown on the Master Water Plan. This cost is estimated to be approximately $ 6,250.00. The Staff supports City participation, but the City Council will have to approve the cost share. That will be done as part of phase one? Petrie: Right, it will have to be whenever the waterline is constructed. Conklin: We are asking for an assessment of $200 per lot for sanitary sewer improvements to the Hamstring Creek Basin. This assessment shall be paid prior to final plat acceptance of each phase (97 lots @$200 per lot = $19,400.00 for all phases). If it is determined that costs greater than $19,400 are needed to improve Lift Station No. 7 due to the additional projected sewer flow from this development, the developer shall be responsible for these additional costs. Number eight, access to the individual lots shall be prohibited from Sunshine Road. Number nine, a detailed hydrological study on the Zone A shall be performed and approved by FEMA and a Map Revision approved prior to submitting the final plat for Phase I. Number ten, the culvert under Sunshine Road at the Flood Zone A shall be removed and improved to meet the standards as set forth in the City Drainage Criteria Manual. Number eleven, no final plat for this subdivision will be accepted by the Planning Division until the final plat for Bridgeport VI has been approved and filed of record. They are being held to this developer that Subdivision Committee Meeting August 2, 2001 Page 22 they have to complete this development to get the final plat approved prior to a final plat for phase one, or else you wouldn't have public access and public lines. They are going to be tied to this developer which they are in the process of constructing those improvements, the land is not just sitting there, they are actually working on it. Number twelve, the Final Plat shall have a note that all retaining wall construction be shown on all future building permits, be setback two feet from the right-of-way, and be approved by the City Engineer. Number thirteen, a minimum of 2.43 acres shall be dedicated as Park Land. The proposed dedication is located on property that is currently in process for annexation. If the property is not annexed, parks fees will be due pursuant to ordinances in place at time of final plat acceptance. Number fourteen, approval of this project does not guarantee that sewer capacity will be available at the time of individual lot development. Number fifteen, The sidewalk widths and greenspaces shall be installed in accordance with the Master Street Plan and Chapter 171 of the Unified Development Ordinance. The rest are standard conditions. I would kind of like to get your feeling, if you are in agreement with staff on the phasing because that's why they are back before you. I was going to recommend that you don't approve it at Planning Commission and instead of doing that I thought bringing it back to this level and let's discuss the issue of timing of when or where future subdivision approval should occur. Bunch: New Bridge Road will be completed all the way to Sunshine to the adjacent subdivision? Conklin: No, not with phase one. We are going to get the right-of-way and some type of assurance that the road will be extended. As you know, it's better to do it up front than before everybody moves in and they don't want the road extended. That's one of the reasons for that. Ward: Conklin: Petrie: Go back over Sunshine Road improvements. Sunshine Road is going to be approved to city streets standards, half the street, 14 feet including curb, gutter, storm drainage, sidewalk. The other side is going to meet county standards. Typically ten feet of pavement, four foot gravel shoulder and an open ditch. Conklin: Which will provide a paved access on Sunshine Road up to Mount Comfort. South of this development is still gravel at this time to Wedington. Subdivision Committee Meeting • August 2, 2001 Page 23 • Keith Shreve - Sidewalk and Trails Shreve: This design is meeting all sidewalk requirements. Ward: Right now we are only looking at phase one? Conklin: We are looking at phase one and two at this time but they are going to bring final plats in separately. If they do not start on phase two within one year, they will have to bring back the preliminary plat for phase two. There is a one year time frame that they have to start construction. Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie: Humbard: Petrie: They need show the phases over here in the vicinity map, I think that's really confusing. Those are zoning phases. The other thing, just for clarity, I'll add it to the conditions, all of the open ditches that are shown are required to be fully concrete. You are showing quite a lot of open ditches through here. The last thing, on this existing sewer line, you are still calling out 71/2 feet of easement on the plat and they need to be 10 feet. That's all. Kim Hesse - Landscape Administrator Hesse: I have no additional comments. Kim Rogers - Parks Operations Coordinator Rogers: Tim mentioned everything. After annexation and rezoning are approved we will determine park land area at that time. Ward: Where is the park land proposed? Conklin: This floodway, floodplain. The idea is it could become part of a greenway trail, no ballfields. Preserving the natural features and going along Hamestring Creek. Ward: How many acres, four or five? • Humbard: There's 41/2 acres total between this building line and the ditch line. Subdivision Committee Meeting • August 2, 2001 Page 24 • • Conklin: Humbard: Bunch: Humbard: Ward: Conklin: Bunch: Conklin: Bunch: Conklin: Humbard: Ward: Petrie: On your vicinity map, we do need you to show the streets that were built as part of the Fieldstone development. That needs to be on there. If it's not on there when I get it back, I'm not going to put you on Planning Commission. My name is Phil Humbard with Engineering Design Services. I appreciate Tim's and Sara's efforts to make this proceed forward. One of the things I have today is a revised map that shows a little different phasing. These lots up on the corner that you see, lots 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 are kind of sticking out there in the air by themselves. In our meeting the other day we decided that it would be better to drop that phase line back and not get those out there by themselves. We don't have a problem with putting those in phase three. That's the only thing that's changed on this map. You changed your designation, you have two number nines and two number tens with the same legend on them. We'll renumber those. The other comments I don't see anything. When does this go to City Council? It's going to City Council Tuesday night. Rezoning on phase three right? The city limit line is actually here. It doesn't affect what we are doing here? I did not allow them to bring forward a preliminary plat outside the City at this time. They originally showed it all but, based on my experience and what I think we need to do, we need to get the annexation and rezoning done first before we even consider that development up there. We changed the shading on the floodzone. It's going to have to change to whatever it's going to have to be after the study either way. On the $18,400 assessment, is that for putting a bigger pump on the lift station or making a bigger lift station? That's for any improvements needed. It could be pumps, it could be force main, which Subdivision Committee Meeting • August 2, 2001 Page 25 • • is what was originally projected. Ward: How big of a sewer line do we have out there? Petrie: It seems there was 24 inch force main. Humbard: It could be for infiltration. Petrie: Yes. We have 15 inch gravity going in and a 12 inch force main going out, it's rather small. We start on the plant, we wipe all this out. Ward: Petrie: If the new sewer plant was in would this gravity flow to it? No. This whole side of town will probably go to this point and from here to the plant. They can eliminate almost all of it except for about one pump. Ward: At this time I would like to open it up to public comment. Is there anyone that would like to address this item? PUBLIC COMMENT: Ward: Seeing none, I'll close it to public comment and bring it back to the Committee. Conklin: It needs to go to Planning Commission. Hoover: I remember from last time, this connection on the north? Conklin: That's a future phase. We are not approving that. They've showed it to give you an idea. We are not approving that design. Humbard: We had it shown different but we were asked to put a connection over there. In the last meeting we talked about making that an easement instead of actually building that connection. Hoover: Approval of this does not include that? Conklin: Exactly. Bunch: Before Planning Commission we'll also have to revise the number of lots. Also, redo Subdivision Committee Meeting • August 2, 2001 Page 26 • • the phase comment over here in the vicinity map. Petrie: These that you are taking out, they are going to go to phase three, not phase two? Humbard: Right. Bunch: What we are looking at is 92 lots in phases one and two? Humbard: Yes. MOTION: Bunch: I'll move that we forward preliminary plat 01-4.00, Fairfield Subdivision, to full Planning Commission subject to comments. Hoover: Second. Ward: I'll concur. Subdivision Committee Meeting • August 2, 2001 Page 27 • ADM 01-33.00: Administrative Item (Lindsey Sign, 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. The request is for a determination of commercial design standards with regard to sign proposed for the site. Ward: The fifth item on the agenda this morning is ADM 01-33.00 Lindsey Sign 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. The request is for a determination of commercial design standards with regard to sign proposed for the site. Conklin: We do not have a staff report written but we do have a recommendation this morning. Working with Mike McKimmey our Sign Inspector, this is a Joint identification sign for an office building. The idea is to have the names of the tenants on the sign for this six story, 75 foot tall office building, it has 83,000 square feet. The sign ordinance maximum height is 30 feet, they are showing 33 feet. Staff is not opposed to a Joint identification sign as long as it meets our sign ordinance. You would have to reduce it down to 30 feet to meet that. What's causing the increased height is the architectural features surrounding the display area for the names of the tenants. I hate to try to bring it down to a regular type free-standing monument sign where we list the business name to 6 feet by 75 square feet. I do think that the architectural features enhances the appearance of the sign and the scale of this building. Being a very large building, I think the sign is appropriate. If it was a single story office building that was a couple thousand square feet, I would probably would have a different recommendation to the Subdivision Committee this morning. I do think that because they are trying to architecturally blend it in with the site and the size of the building, I think it will fit into the development. Ward: It fits the architecture of the building. Conklin: Yes, it carries Hoover: This is for discussion? Conklin: Yes. The Planning Commission granted the authority for the Subdivision Committee to approve the free-standing sign. • Hoover: One issue I have, I think it's a nice design but if you continue with the argument, if we • Subdivision Committee Meeting August 2, 2001 Page 28 • • Conklin: Hoover: Conklin: Ward: McKimmey: Fuggitt: McKimmey: Fuggitt: McKimmey: are going to base our sign size on the size and height of the building, if we have a 30 story building, does that mean they are going to get a sign that's bigger? No. I'm saying they should meet the sign ordinance. The Commercial Design Standards state, large, out -of -scale signs. They have a picture of the building and the Commercial Design Standards showing the sign against the building. That's kind of why I based it on the building because we have a 75 foot tall building that's 83,000 square feet. I don't think this, if it meets our sign ordinance standards, it's large and out -of -scale on this site. It does meet our sign ordinance standards? I would like our Sign Inspector to go over that on joint identification signs. Mike, why don't you give us your take on this? After a preliminary review yesterday afternoon of the sign, I had some questions before I could sign off on the sign. One was the elevation of the street, I don't have that on the drawing, I could not make out what the elevation of the street was at the sign location. That will be the zero point for making the elevation determination on the height of the sign. What point in the street? Where the sign is located. The centerline, curb height? I'll be happy to accept the highest point of the street at the sign location. It's a call, the streets vary in elevation quite a bit and I'm not a surveyor. We'll give the applicants the benefit of the doubt. Secondly, this is not a monument sign, it is a freestanding sign even though it has been designed in the monument style. Again, on the setback of the sign, it will require a 40 foot setback off of the property line. The question then arises if the height, the best determination I could make is the height looks to be 33 feet, I would like to have some better information on the drawing. If it's 33 feet and the roadway is less, there may be a need to lower the sign. Those are the questions that I have. Other than that, the calculations of the square footage are correct. 1 support it. It's a beautiful sign. I don't have any other reservations other than those I've made comment to. Subdivision Committee Meeting • August 2, 2001 Page 29 Ward: This is zoned C-2 which is the same type of property we have over in Spring Creek. They have a very similar type of sign. Conklin: Yes, they do have anoint identification sign. Ward: I feel like they are all within sight of each other almost. The next thing is, when you have an office building setting the maximum height is 75 feet heigh, this definitely is not out -of -scale with the size of the building. That's what I've always looked at. Hoover: Do you know how tall 34 feet is? It's a two story house with a roof on it. Ward: When it's setting up against a 75 foot building... Hoover: You go to other cities and you see high rises, they have the name of the building on the marquis. You don't name every tenant. If you have 25 tenants, you can't name them all. The sign would go on forever. • Ward: In this case Lindsey is going to be taking 80,000 square feet. They are taking almost four floors of it. • Conklin: Looking at it, whatever height you decide at, we are up to 24 feet to this point and then we have these architectural features. One way I looked at it is if you want to reduce the height, make it smaller, you can reduce the signage and still have the architectural features but I don't think the architectural features are taking away from the overall sign. Hoover: I think the design is very nice, I don't want to change that. I want to say I'm thinking about the concept in precedence now because if we do this the next one is going to have the same. When you go to other towns and they have high-rises, they do not put every tenants name on the signage, even if they have retail space they don't. Fuggitt: Where the signage area came up with is the calculation in the ordinance, that's as big as the signage can be. It's limited to 32 square feet per tenant would be the max. If you did list all the tenants, their area on this signage becomes smaller and smaller. You could never exceed that sign size. It really becomes a marketing issue because in this particular building, if it were all office space it probably wouldn't be that critical because a lot of time if you have office space you don't need the recognition. The two wings on this building could possibly be retail space, that's what we expect. Those people are really adamant about some kind of signage towards the street. • • Subdivision Committee Meeting August 2, 2001 Page 30 Hoover: Ward: Bunch: Hoover: Bunch: I'm familiar mixed use but, of course, I'm used to other cities. I realize when they have retail also they have signs on the building but they don't have the opportunity. I understand the commercial design guidelines. I'm thinking that I would like to thing about this longer, can this go back to full Planning Commission? We've been given the power to get it done at this level. I don't see it's a real issue. As long as we keep it within the allowed. I understand the way it's designed right now, it's not a big issue to me. Most of that I guess would be this little steeple and the base. Knock that off right there and that would help. How do you feel about this issue? Somewhat ambivalent on it. When was it decided this group would be the one to decide? Conklin: I did that at the Commission level. Bunch: That was presented last meeting. Conklin: Believe me, I wasn't trying to circumvent the Commission on it. I thought it was something that this Committee could look at with Commercial Design Standards and determine if it's a large out -of -scale sign with flashy colors. That's why I said, if it meets the ordinance and I read that and looking at what they are doing out there, I have somewhat of a hard time saying that. It's your decision. If you want to make a finding or you don't want to decide on it and take it to Planning Commission. Bunch: Fuggitt: Bunch: Fuggitt: Bunch: Where is it going to be located? On this island here in the parking area. That makes a difference. At one time it was up in here where the sign was shown. Right. We pulled that back in excess of that 40 foot distance. A place like that or like this has a much greater bearing. When it's back off the street enough that it doesn't create a lot of sight hazard. • Hoover: I really would like to go out there and look at it, compare it to other signage. I really Subdivision Committee Meeting • August 2, 2001 Page 31 • haven't thought about it at all. Conklin: Time is probably not critical. The sign is the last thing you are going to do right? Fuggitt: Other than just time to come here again. McKimmey: If I could provide any information about what signage is there. I believe I've permitted every sign out in that development. We have several joint identification signs very similar in nature to these signs here. Some were permitted before we had Commercial Design Standards and some were after. Hoover: What's an example of one that's similar in height? McKimmey: Spring Creek Center, Shoe Carnival, Best Buy. The sign was accepted by the Board of Sign Appeals for the whole project area out there which addresses the roadway joint identification sign, which can be at a maximum 300 square feet. That's as provided by ordinance for joint identification signs. It was a special case for a commercial subdivision. Conklin: Northwest Village has one. McKimmey: As does Evelyn Hills. Hoover: How big is Evelyn Hills? Edwards: How tall? McKimmey: 29 feet from point of pavement. Hoover: It's a total of 300 square feet? McKimmey: Correct. Bunch: How about the one on 265 and 45? McKimmey: Harp's I believe is 184 square feet. Ward: It's up on a hill. Most of the signs have a lot more total square feet than what they are • asking for here. Subdivision Committee Meeting • August 2, 2001 Page 32 • • McKimmey: Fuggitt: McKimmey: Ward: Hoover: Bunch: Ward: Correct. If we are taking the highest point of the street as our benchmark, the way elevation works out here at this point, then this island is probably six feet above the street level. That's going to cause your height. Part of the deal is trying to keep it proportioned. Would anyone be opposed if we delayed it? I want to look at these examples. No. No. This project will come back to the next Subdivision Committee meeting. Is there any other business. Seeing none, this meeting is adjourned.