Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-11-15 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, November 15, 2001 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN ADM 01-45.00 Administrative Item (Skiles, pp 563) Withdrawn by applicant LSP 01-36.00 Lot Split (Lazenby, pp 323) Approved Page 2 LSD 01-37.00 Large Scale Development (Dandy, pp 524) Tabled Page 6 LSD 01-38.00 Large Scale Development (American Electric, pp 328) Approved Page 22 PPL 01-6.00 Preliminary Plat (Watkins, pp 650) Tabled Page 30 PPL 01-7.00 Preliminary Plat (Fairfield Subdivision Phase 111, pp 359) Forwarded Page 46 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Don Bunch Lee Ward Sharon Hoover STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Sara Edwards Ron Petrie Keith Shreve Kim Hesse Eric Schuldt Tim Conklin • Subdivision Committee November 15, 2001 Page 2 Ward: Welcome to the meeting of the Subdivision Committee meeting, today is Thursday, November 15, 2001. We have five items on the agenda this morning, number one has been pulled. We'll start off with the first one, LSP 01-36.00 for a lot split submitted by Glenn Carter of Carter Consulting, PA on behalf of William Lazenby for property located at 3016 Mt. Comfort Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately .40 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 0.18 acres and 0 22 acres. Tim, what can you tell us about this? Conklin: This is a lot split, it is located at the northeast corner of Gooseberry Lane and Mount Comfort Road It is surrounded by R-1 zoning. It does meet all of our zoning and subdivision regulations. We're asking the committee to approve it at this level. Condition one, the applicant is dedicating an additional 15' of right of way along Mount Comfort Road. Staff requests that this be labeled as 15' of right of way dedicated by this plat. The rest are standard conditions of approval and I would encourage you to approve it at this level. Ward: Ok, thank you. Is this in the city or out in the county? • Conklin: This is in the city. • Ward: Ok, Keith, do you have any remarks for sidewalks? Shreve: Yes Sir, I need to make a comment here. Ordinance 4311 requires sidewalk construction for lot splits or cash contribution in lieu of construction. We feel this is an inappropriate area to build a sidewalk. We are recommending a cash contribution in this location due to the fact that sidewalks exists nearby. The City Attorney has issued an opinion that this part of the ordinance is illegal and should not be enforced. He has recommended that it not be enforced at this time. I wanted to make you aware of that. Ward: Ok. Eric, on parks? Schuldt: Parks conditions are listed under standard conditions. Ward: Ok, thank you. So there is a payment of $470? Schuldt: Yes. Ward: Ok. Ron, engineering? Petrie: No comments. • • • Subdivision Committee November 15, 2001 Page 3 Ward: Kim? Hesse: No comments. Ward: At this time, I'll open it to the public. Is there anyone who would like to make a public comment on this particular item? Seeing none, I'll close it to the public and I11 bring it back to the committee. Basically it is a lot split, is there a sewer out there? Petrie. There is sewer. along Gooseberry and Mount Comfort. Ward: Ok. Do you understand about putting the 15' on the plat? Carter: Right, I've got a note here, I'll get that fixed. Ward: Ok. Do you have any other comments Glen about this particular item? Ward: Commissioners? Bunch: A question concerning the waiving of the sidewalks. Since there is a group working on revising that ordinance, is there any way that this can be put in limbo or how is it being addressed? Is it just being wiped out all together or is it pending the revision? What position are you taking? Shreve: Well, the City Attorney sent a memo and said that we should not collect or enforce this ordinance at this time. I haven't received any other guidance on how to handle it. I went ahead and made the calculations of the cost to make the applicant aware that these charges might be enforced, depending decisions by the City Council and the Planning Commission for this to be enforced on this lot split or if it gets by free. I can't answer that at this point in time. Conklin: All we have is our City Attorney's opinion directing the staffnot to enforce the ordinance. Hoover: We don't have a copy of that opinion of what was sent to staff. Can I see that? I've never seen it before, I've heard about it. Ward: Since our City Attorney feels like it would be inappropriate to extract fees at this point, it is probably unconstitutional as far as he is concemed, then I feel like this would be omitted from extracting any other fees at this point, especially on a straight lot split. How many Subdivision Committee November 15, 2001 Page 4 times have we actually got money in lieu of putting a sidewalk on these lot splits? Two or three times? Conklin: Yes, typically in the past, we've had the sidewalk built. Hoover: Is he saying that we can't require the sidewalk to be built either? Conklin: I think he is. Shreve: That is the way we interpreted it is that it would not be a condition for the lot split. Sidewalk construction of a cash contribution. Ward: What I would like to see would be at least a sidewalk built but if it can't be enforced right now.. . Hoover: I guess what is difficult on this is that if in two weeks we have the sidewalk ordinance revised and we do require something then in the meantime, some people are just falling through the loop hole? Ward: I think so. I mean I don't think we have the right to.. . Hoover: How is that fair to the other people that are going to have to go and pay something two weeks from now. Ward: Well, that will be a new regulation, anew policy. I mean we've got a lot of things that have been done in the past that are being changed now that are required. Bunch: Tim, how long typically does it take one of these to, after a lot split is approved, how long does it take it to go through the system? Conklin: With this one there are no improvements that will have to be made, public improvements, no extension of water or sewer lines, so they cam e to our office with a check for $470 for the parks fees, we would approve it, right? One day. Bunch: Ok, then it gets filed in the county? Conklin: Yes, we would put a stamp on it approved for filing and sign it for the Planning Division Bunch: In that case, it would take a period of time for anything to be dissolved on the legal parts. We might as well look at it as though we don't have that ordinance. Therefore, I move for • • Subdivision Committee November 15, 2001 Page 5 Ward: Hoover: Conklin: Ward: Hoover: approval of LSD 01-36.00 at this level without the sidewalk money and subject to the conditions of approval. Do I hear a second? I just have a real problem with this. Can it pass with just two votes? I think so. It is a majority. Then I will concur and second. I'll just say present. Bunch: The only other thing that we might do is put a condition on it that if the revisions of the ordinance come in before this is officially filed then whatever happens would kick in. That is still likely to be a moot point. Ward: I think that is a moot point. I mean all he has to do is hand a check for $470 this morning. Conklin: I look at the voting question, you vote for a reason and you count the votes, 2 out of 3 passes. Hoover: Ok. Ward: Thanks Tim. • • • Subdivision Committee November 15, 2001 Page 6 LSD 01-37.00 Large Scale Development (Dandy, pp 524) was submitted by Glenn Carter of Carter Consulting, PA on behalfof Brian Dandy for property located at the southwest corner of Fletcher Avenue and Rodgers Drive. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains 0.50 acres with 12 dwelling units proposed. Ward: The second item on the agenda is LSD 01-37.00, Large Scale Development submitted by Glenn Carter of Carter Consulting on behalfof Brian Dandy for property located on the southwest corner of Fletcher Avenue and Rodgers Drive. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains 0.50 acres with 12 dwelling units proposed. We're becoming pretty familiar with this. Conklin: This is the first time you've seen this This is a different development, a different property owner. The property was looked at by the Planning Commission with regard to street frontage for the R-2 zoning. We discussed that Tuesday night with the lot directly to the west. I won't go into that in great detail. They are basically mirroring the development to the west, ten two bedroom units, two one bedroom units. Total bedrooms, twenty-two. Twenty-two parking spaces are being provided. It is zoned R-2 to the east, west and south of this project. Conditions to address, right of way shall be dedicated to include 25' from centerline along Rodgers Drive and Fletcher Avenue. An additional 15' of landscaping is required between the two and the new public right of way and all parking lots. Planning Commission determination of offsite improvements to Fletcher Avenue. The applicant is proposing to widen the street 14' from centerline adjacent to Center Street frontage to meet local street standards. A traffic count was performed. 834 vehicles per day presently use Fletcher Avenue. This development would be projected to generate 80 vehicles per day. No public lift station shall be used for this development. All replacement trees shall be a minimum of 2" caliper. All dumpster and utility equipment shall be screened. Trees along the right of way east of the proposed drive must be trimmed to provide adequate site distance prior to final certificate of occupancy. One ADA parking space is required with an 8' aisle and 8' space. The minimum driveway radius has not been labeled as requested It does not appear to meet the 25' that is required. Center Street right of way shall be shown on the plat. Staff would like to add two more conditions, based on Tuesday night's discussion that in order to treat this developer consistently with the developer to the west, a traffic study will need to be performed and provided to us as part of the resubmittal, analyzing the traffic on Fletcher. Also, the Fire Chief will need to make a recommendation with regard to what Ms. Hoffman brought up with regard to distance and tum around. The rest are standard conditions of approval. I have talked with Dennis Ledbetter, our interim Fire Chief, our new Fire Chief starts today. I have not spoken with him. Dennis Ledbetter stated this morning, looking at the one to the west, which was brought up that it does seem to meet the distance requirements from the fire • • Subdivision Committee November 15, 2001 Page 7 hydrant, that is about 200' from the fire hydrant to the edge of the building. With regard to the need for a turn around, he would recommend that a turn around be provided, however, we have not required turn arounds in parking lots for apartments in the past. This would be a change in what we've done on Lindsey projects, and other projects in town, where you have a 24' aisle, 19' stalls. We have not required. Hoover: Have you had a dead end parking lot before and not required it? Conklin: Yes. Two off of Lewis, Elder and Lewis, Dale Schultz, we have not in the past required that. It would be difficult to do a turn around with regard to how this is laid out because a cul de sac radius is 40' or 80' wide, it would take quite a bit of distance to make a turn around a fire truck would be able to use in a private development, private drive, private parking lot. Dennis Ledbetter will be the one assigned to review all development from now on. He will be working with us on all development and we had some discussion this morning on what he sees as a need for fire protection Any changes that we do make, ordinance changes, we'll bring those through you and to the City Council with regard to what is required for a development. • Ward: Ok, thanks Tim. Keith, sidewalks? Shreve: No comment. Ward: Ok, thank you. Schuldt: No parks fees, the City Attorney ruled that this particular development would not be governed by the park land ordinance. Ward: Ok, thank you. Ron with engineering? Petrie: On this, I just want to make sure everybody understands. The street widening, right of way dedication, what is involved. I kind of sketched it out myselfjust looking at it. What is in the pink is what we would recommend that is street widening, the typical 14' from centerline. That is going to involve for one thing, now the sidewalk is going to have to come all the way around. Now it is just shown to be stubbed out to the middle of the street. It should follow the street, it should wrap around like this and come around like this. Right of way we're looking at would sit about right here. That is at the edge of the driveway. The right of way would fall right along here. Hoover: The sidewalk keeps going? • Subdivision Committee November 15, 2001 Page 8 Petrie: The sidewalk should be wrapped around to follow that right of way. Hoover: Oh, ok. Petrie: Then we have the planning requirement of the 15' of greenspace. We've got some issues that is going to take some plan changes. Carter: I was advised by my client that this had been discussed in the very initial phase of the conditional use with the Planning Commission that this situation where the property goes out into the street and the right of way and all that, had already been discussed and agreed upon. My client tells me that he would certainly comply with anything you would like but if you are going to require the right of way, which is very understandable, the street was built over the guy's property. If you are going to require us move the property line back to the right of way, then we would at least like a variance of the 15' greenspace requirement. That being the case, we would be asking for a variance of the 15' of greenspace requirement. Conklin: Iwouldprobablydisagreethatitwasdiscussed. They had a concept plan that showed • both properties together and this is the first time we've reviewed it for code compliance, I just want to make that clear. • Carter: Ok, well I was not present. Conklin: A lot has happened. We've been dealing with this since May. I'm always concerned on drawings the applicants hand out, because we don't review those for code compliance typically. All the different divisions, that is where the six units came from. Edwards: There was a specific statement that said this has not been reviewed. Carter: Ok. Petrie: Some other comments, just real quick. If you could move your meters up to the right of way. The location that you have got shown for discharge in that detention pond, that needs to be reevaluated. That is more or less shown just to dump out south. There is no, it doesn't go there now. It needs to get back to the low point where it is presently discharging. That is all that I have. Ward: Let's go back over this 15' greenspace area Where would that be? • • • Subdivision Committee November 15, 2001 Page 9 Edwards: I think Ron dust stated the property line would be the new right of way, is that correct? Petrie: The right of way should be 25' from the center of the road. Edwards: Which is this red line? Petrie: Yes. Edwards. Then the 15' would have to come back. Conklin: The Center Street right of way comes across at this point right there. This is all right of way already. Once again, this is a very difficult, very unique situation with all of the rights of way. Really, the dedication would be about that_muchbecause that is Center Street. Petrie: It would be from this triangle, there to there to there. Conklin: Ok. Carter: Again, we would be glad to do anything we can to comply with all the ordinances, to the point that it just destroys the project. If there is anything way possible to make that work, we'll be working on making that work. Petrie: Even if it stays the way it is, you're going to have the back of curb, you're going to have a sidewalk and then you're going to have parking, there is not going to be any greenspace, not in the right of way or anywhere in order to make that fit in there. Carter: The area of the street, is the street going to be widened all the way to our property line? Petrie: Property line to property line. Carter: Ok. Petrie: That is the recommendation. It requires Planning Commission to make that determination. Carter: Does that leave any green area at all, whether it is in right of way or not. How much space between the new edge of pavement and the sidewalk is there? Petrie: I can't answer that. There is a requirement that there is 6' of greenspace. • • Subdivision Committee November 15, 2001 Page 10 Carter: Ok, I'm just wondering if when we do this, is there going to be any grass at all? Are we going to wipe out all of the trees that already there? Petrie: Carter: Well, what's there right now, there is not any plan to be saved, with parking lot, sidewalk. There's not much. I understand what you're asking for and I guess we need to look at that and see how we can provide it. Ward: Ok, thanks Ron for explaining that. Kim? Hesse: What is this on the plans EC? Carter: Erosion control. Hesse: Erosion control, ok. The electric is going to be running in the easement, is that right? Carter: Yes. Hesse: We need the proper space for these trees. You show one of them on the side, they can't be in the right of way. You have to have it in this space. That is all I have. Carter: Ward: Ok. Ok, thanks Kim. I asked you Eric about Parks. Glen, do you have any questions or anything before I go to the public? Carter: No, I think Ron has done a good presentation and it is real clear on everything else. Public Comment: Ward: Ok, thank you. At this point I will open it up to the public on this particular item. Is there anyone who would like to make public comment on this issue? Davidson: Yes Sir. My name is Sharon Davidson. I live on Rodgers, I've been following this problem from the start. As you can see, the people going over to work on this table It is a problem. It is a big problem because we're trying to put an acre concrete slab in an area where it doesn't work. We have its predecessor project on Olive we're suffering from. It is a concrete slab of four houses shoved on a lot that was once a wooded lot. There is drainage problems and the parking issue is a major problem. These men have a • • • Subdivision Committee November 15, 2001 Page 11 history, they can see what they've done to these folks that now don't have anywhere to park, can't drive up and down their street because all of these vehicles that are in this tight four plex concrete slab development are going to be parking on their street. These guys know this. What are they still trying to do? The more of the same on a larger scale in a worse location. Why did this whole problem start? Mr. Schmitt himself admitted, as I first suspected, was he had some money, whatever, he wanted to get in on the development game. Ok, he may have some history in it before. I'm not sure. It is hard to even get them to admit what they have done or not but then they want to bring up examples of past projects. I get this either/or from their situations. One, we're doing everything we can to ask us. Two, what, what did you ask we should do in the first place? The problem with this property is this was picked off the map. The man went into the office, looked at R-2, wow, R-2 as close to the University as I can get, that is what he went in there looking for. Not to build any wonderful project, not to come into a neighborhood and add, compliment or even have a nice little lot for future potential. He came in to inject himself to find the most dense real estate he could, closest to the University, he didn't care what happened. We have proved that they don't care because one, the way they started, they brought their bull dozer in, the single common driveway into their three split lot, divided, whatever, project lots. They cleared that with one man and one bulldozer. Then we come in here later, we have to say it is two projects, we have to manipulate the situation. It puts our city in a bind. They know these guys are doing the dirty, but they have to do a certain amount of accommodating. They have to wind up having some control on people who do not care what they do. So what do they do? They get us in this line now that we've given one waiver to put in a large scale to hopefully have some control over it. Well, what are they doing there? They haven't worked with the neighborhood. They originally told the neighborhood when there was a little bit of comment about what is going on after the tree removal that they were going to put in duplexes. Ok, we are a mixed area, we have duplexes. Nobody wants more of everything but we can understand. We understood that trying to be reasonable. Funny, that is not what was going on from the get go, it is apartments and apartments are a huge difference. Ok, now we get back to the inappropriateness of the project, they still have a right to demand, simply because it is R-2, that they can cost our city amazing amounts of dollars and resources at a time we don't have it to accommodate their right to ruin our neighborhood. I have a little problem with that. Dust don't see why they have a right to do that. It was suggested at the last meeting to Mr. Dandy's partner that he speak with the neighborhood, the lawyer said, blah, blah, blah, blah...maybe. Ok, what they did in response to the neighborhood having a problem and asking them to do what they originally said they were going to do, we'll add one more unit. You all are costing us too much money, we're going to stick one more unit in there, just to show you. This is what we are dealing with. Ok, we can have atract history of their previous projects. We have their giving contempt for our city resources, the community, Subdivision Committee November 15, 2001 Page 12 the people and excuse me, Mr. Ward, but I have a big problem with your just poo pooing away with the traffic isn't any worse in anywhere else in Fayetteville, I beg to differ with you Sir. I think that is a horrible argument. I don't quite like that you get to relate that you live on Mount Sequoyah and sort of give a "Well I live up there and I can deal with it" I don't think you live down there Sir, you live on Dogwood. Dogwood goes, you know, you don't have to deal with this. I don't think it is quite fair for you to correlate that you live up there and you can deal with it when you aren't having to deal with it Sir. It doesn't go to you down there. Back to the whole problem ofthe road, the safety. That is all going to come up in the Planning Commission. These are apartments. If you look down here on 11 in our conditions. None of those are good, grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire, streets...all of that. Tree preservation, every aspect, these men have either given us erroneous figures, wrong figures, switched their data, whatever. Even if we give them the benefit ofthe doubt that they're just not real bright. Ok, well that really impacts me even more than them being smart and knowing what they're doing. They are not real bright, that is what happened on Olive, we're in trouble here because these guys don't have their act together. Their public statements to the press and whatever. "We do everything the Commission tells us to do, we don't know, blah, blah..." Excuse me! That is rude and it is wrong and you know exactly what you're doing. Ok, so here is the deal. I think the whole point ofa Planning Commission, and I think our Kit Williams was a little off when he put R-2 rights up here when the whole point of planning is not to just make sure all of the rules and ordinances are followed, it is to have a concept, aplan. It is to make sense. It is to integrate We would like sustainable growth. We would like smart growth, that isn't just infill or putting in anything on a lot you can fit. That is not smart growth and these gentlemen know what they're doing, they don't care what they're doing. It is going to be a huge problem. Again, go look at the concrete on Olive and you think that that slab of concrete, how are they going to get all of these apartments? These trees, these everything in here, they can't. They are going to have to come back to you again It should be put off, there is no services for these guys. They don't deserve it. I think we're going to find out that Sir, the traffic is a serious major issue. It is a very, very dangerous area and with old ladies like my Mildred Rose up there walking, I'm telling you I have a problem with you allowing a dangerous situation to be created. Again, we'll talk more later. Thank you. Ward: Would anyone else like to make acomment on this particular item? Hearing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Committee. Hoover: I have a question for Eric Why is it we're not collecting parks fees on this? Schuldt: Tim, do you want to explain that? Subdivision Committee • November 15, 2001 Page 13 Hoover: I just know that on our lot splits we collected parks fees. Conklin: Sure. Back when we started, they brought to us two developments on two separate lots, less than an acre. They went out and cleared the vegetation off of both lots together. When I brought forward the agenda request for administrative item for the concem I had over the lot not having frontage directly onto Fletcher. I put on there that it had to go through large scale development. There were discussion that there is not a law to make me require them to go through large scale. Because all other developers that develop on less than an acre don't have to pay parks fees, that they shouldn't have to pay parks fees. That was according to a discussion with the City Attorney. Hoover: Wait, back up one second so I can understand that. Less than an acre doesn't require parks fees? Conklin: Hoover: • Conklin: Hoover: Conklin: Hoover: • That is correct. What about a lot split that is less than an acre9 That does require parks fees. Yes, that is the ordinance, it is the way the ordinance is written. That is exactly what the ordinance says? I don't have it in front of me or else I would read it to you. I believe you. I just can't believe it is written that way. Conklin: Yes. Internally, I've talked about trying to make it more equal, but then that makes it sometimes more complex too. Hoover: Usually so, being fair to everybody is usually more complex. Conklin: There is no magic. This over an acre, I don't know where that came from. That's just how it is. Hoover: So if it is over an acre it requires parks fees? Conklin: Yes, on large scale. The definition ofa large scale development is something that is over an acre. This has been the entire debate from day one. Should these be large scales? Can we make them large scales? Two separate lots, two separate owners. Can we make • • • Subdivision Committee November 15, 2001 Page 14 two separate individual owners have to get together, hire engineers and plan their developments together? I don't think I can do that. People have the right to develop their property individually. That is why 1 have taken the stand that they have to meet all ordinances separately. You brought that up about the shared driveway. That backed me up into a corner somewhat. We've seen detention ponds on this person's property that we're dealing with today for Mr. Schmitt's project. We've seen lift stations for Mr. Schmitt's project on this property. We've had to go back and I'm the reason, I'm the one that has said if they were going to cross property lines, it was going to be one large scale development. That is how we got to the parks fee issue. These shouldn't even be before you. They are before you because 1 was very concerned after all of the vegetation was cleared off that truly it was one project and not two separate projects. Bunch: Tim, on that lot line adjustment, in effect that was actually a lot split wasn't it of the two lots in between them? It did change hands. Conklin: Well, the difference between a lot split and a property line adjustment, a lot split you start with one piece of property and end up with two. A property line adjustment, you start with two or three or however many parcels and you end up with less. You started with three and ended up with two. We didn't split anything. Bunch: Well, in effect this was a lot split because one lot was split into two. Conklin: It just adds property to another piece. Bunch: The middle lot was split and half of it was sold to the other party. Conklin: It enlarges a property line adjustment either enlarges both lots or takes one lot and makes it smaller and gives it to another. You never end up with more lots, you end up with fewer or larger or smaller. In this case we ended up with fewer lots. Bunch: Ok, I see that. Hoover: Do we have any restrictions on the distance a driveway can be from an intersection on large scale development? Conklin: That is a code we can enforce, I believe it is 40'. Hoover: How do you consider this an intersection? It is past the intersection. • • • Subdivision Committee November 15, 2001 Page 15 • Conklin: You know what, since the condition on there is to hire a traffic consultant, I think that is a good question for a professional traffic engineer to answer that question. Ward: Bunch: Don, do you have anymore questions? This may be a moot point with the additional traffic review, of the 834 vehicles per day used on Fletcher, just for clarification, at what point on Fletcher was that recorded? Conklin: Do you have that Ron? Do you know where Perry took that count on Fletcher? Petrie: My understanding was it was immediately in front of this project. Bunch: Ok, another question. On the drawing under general notes, it says there are no existing or proposed buildings within 100 feet of the site, I think we're all aware that there is one long building of 12 units proposed within 100 feet of the site. Carter: I thought that was referring to existing buildings. Bunch: It says existing or proposed. Conklin: It is probably not a bad idea to show that project on there. Petrie: It is required for it to be shown. I missed that, I made that comment at Plat Review, that is a grading ordinance requirement. Carter: You want to see the other building proposed on there? Bunch: Well, there is a note on here that doesn't ring true and I was wondering why we had the note on there. Conklin: This is what you said. Carter: Ok. My apologies. Bunch: Obviously there is one proposed within 100 feet. Carter: I'll be glad to add that. • • • Subdivision Committee November 15, 2001 Page 16 Bunch: That is just a housekeeping measure to see what that was Also, on this project and the one next door to it, unless I'm reading the drawing wrong, I don't show finished grading in the strip between the two proposed apartment complexes. We have a considerable space there with each project that doesn't show any finished grading or landscaping or anything like that where they back up to each other. Carter: That is because we don't propose to change that grading. It is existing and it remains existing. Conklin: That is a Tim Conklin requirement again that they don't cross property lines. Carter: There will be a stem wall on this building and the existing grading, the existing contours you see will remain the same unchanged. Bunch: There will be a strip between the two that is.. . Carter: Unchanged. Bunch: That will be unchanged. Conklin: I'm not trying to make it difficult for either property owner or developer but ifthey are going to claim they are two separate projects, they need to meet ordinances separately, even though we're at two large scale developments now. Bunch: It would also be a great place ifthey were one development, to put in trees or something like that. Carter: We thought so too, but they wouldn't let us do that. Hoover: I have another question. Tim, on a LSD, do we ever look at compatibility with the rest of the neighborhood? Does that come up in our ordinance? Conklin: I read to you what you can consider on a large scale development. I guess the answer to that is if you're talking about land use, no. I think you have to follow your zoning. Hoover: No, I'm just saying compatibility as far as the character of the neighborhood. Conklin: No. • • • Subdivision Committee November 15, 2001 Page 17 Hoover: Does that come up in our 2020 plan? Conklin: Yes. Hoover: That's good. One question I have is on the dumpster being up front on the road and where we're saying it should be screened. Now, I don't know whether I should be making the assumption that there is a gate on that, if it is screened on three sides, you're going to see it from the road. Conklin: We're going to need some detail on that Glen, what you propose to screen your dumpster? Carter: Is there a requirement for it to not be seen from the road? Conklin: Well, it defeats the purpose if we're telling you to screen it and you're going to be able to see it from the road. We would like some detail on what you plan to do around the dumpster. Carter: Ok, we're trying to accommodate the sanitation department for getting trucks in there and being able to get to that and get out of there as easy as possible. We can work on that. Conklin: Ok, I would like to know what it is going to look like after it is done. Carter: Ok, sure. Bunch: Another question would be the air conditioners, the air-conditioning and heating units, where are they located? Are they screened? I guess this would actually apply to both projects since you're the engineer on that since that other one has been tabled to look at issues like this. Carter: I don't think that applies on residential. Hoover: This is a LSD. Conklin: No, we really don't have screening on residential projects. Bunch: Haven't we done it on apartment complexes, required screening? Ward: I don't believe we have. Subdivision Committee • November 15, 2001 Page 18 Conklin: On dumpsters, but on air conditioning or roof mounted we haven't. Just a note, since you brought that up, I think it is a very good point, those air conditioning units will not be allowed to be in that 10' easement back there. That is essentially what we've done right Ron? We don't allow air conditioning units in utility easements. That is for both projects, something to look like. Any balconies, porches extending our from behind those buildings can't extend over that area either. I've seen that as a problem in the past on some other projects. • • Ward: One thing you might do Glen, I don't think any of these are really totally required, and there are separate projects. There is going to be a total of 24 units right? Carter: Yes. Ward: 44 bedrooms for both projects total. Even though they are not required, it would be really nice if we could find a place to put a bike rack or two in there Also, we've talked in the past about some type of cross access around if it is possible at all. That would really make it much more desirable, not only for the people living there, I think it would make it much safer and easier to get in and out ifpossible. Those are some considerations that you could look at to make it a nicer place to be. There again, I don't think it is required but to answer some of these questions, and we kind of brought it up the other night on Schmitt's was some kind of elevations on what these would look like, some kind of rendering to see if it is kind of compatible with the neighborhood. There are all kinds of things up on Mount Sequoyah so those are some concerns I have. Carter: One question I have about cross access, are you talking about pedestrian or vehicular? Ward: I'm really thinking vehicular ifpossible, it would make it much nicer to be in since they are kind ofa mirror image of each other. If possible, you'll just have to look at it and see if it is possible. Conklin: On your parking, just so you know, that 24' aisle, that is going to be a fire lane on this side and they are always like that. If you put another project to the west, parking will not be allowed along that boundary, this side of the aisle. Carter: How wide is the fire line? Conklin: There is no parking in there at all except the space. • • Subdivision Committee November 15, 2001 Page 19 Carter: What I'm saying was would you like us to mark that fire line? Fire line, no parking or something? Conklin: Sure. Most likely the curb is going to painted red when they go out there. Carter: I was just wondering if there is a width on the fire lane that is required so I can mark it. We can surely put that note on there. Conklin: With regard to Lorel Hoffman's question about the distance, I need to get with Lorel and see if she can give me a code section on that, I need to have Dennis Ledbetter research that, it would be helpful if I can get a code section from Lorel, it's in the fire code, we just need to find that. We haven't been able to find that code section. Hoover: She'll have it memorized, I can guarantee it. Conklin: I need the numbers for that code section so we can verify that as a requirement. Ward: Any other concerns or questions? Bunch: A lot of the comments from the separate owner, the identical project next door would definitely work on this since that other one was tabled at the last Planning Commission meeting, I think some of the comments would work here like the fire lane and that sort of thing would be applicable to both. I don't think that this is ready to send it to the full Planning Commission with this long list of additional considerations and the greenspace with the right of way wrapping around and that sort of thing. I am going to move that this be tabled until such time that at the applicant's discretion, he feels that these additional measures are resolved. That would be like the traffic study off Fletcher, Fire Department determination ofthe proper access, relocation of meters and detention pond questions and the right of way Ron Petrie brought up, room for replacement trees with the reconfiguration of the right of way, placement of air conditioning units, bike racks and cross access consideration, these are just a few of the ones that have been mentioned. I think that we have a pretty full plate and I don't think it is going to be able to get ready in time for Planning Commission. I believe we need to table it and leave it to your discretion as to when you feel that you have these measures resolved and wish to bring it back. Ward: Is the traffic study getting ready to start or do we know anything about that? Carter: I'm trying to contact Ernie Peters now who is kind ofa big guy, there is nobody around here that does those. I will be contacting him and trying to get that done with the other • • Subdivision Committee November 15, 2001 Page 20 project that we're talking about, not planning to come back to the next Planning Commission, it would probably make better sense for this to wait and go to Planning Commission at the same time anyway. I see no problem in bringing this back to the next Subdivision Committee with these items. That would give us some time to work on these things and to address these items and then present you another plat that has got these comments taken care of. I don't see a problem with that. I think that would be appropriate. Conklin: Is the traffic study going to be combined with each of these projects or is it going to be individual? Carter: Ward: I hadn't considered that. We thought about the Planning Commission requiring each separate, I mean requiring the study, I don't know. I would like to hear how you all feel about it. Would you as Planning Commissioners like to see that as one study? I think it needs to be two studies. I think it needs to be two and then combine them and add them up. It might turn out that separate properties, separate owners, separate financing, separate all other things, it might tum out that one ofthem ends up building and another one does something totally different. Bunch: There is also the issue of where the driveways are in relationship to the intersection and that sort of thing, it does seem almost redundant to have two of them back to back mirror images of each other having to have independent studies. At the same time, it has been stated very strongly that these are two separate projects, I guess we will have to have two separate studies. Conklin: With regard to the study, I would like each study to consider the other development. 1 would hate to assume that that is not being developed over here. I think Ernie Peters, if you hire him, is going to have to consider what is happening next door. Carter: Bunch: Isn't that kind of like combining them? What's the difference? Tim, since the same engineer is working on both projects, do we have the owners or the engineering company have the survey done? Conklin: The owners are going to hire the traffic consultant, our staff is going to review his findings. Ron, why don't you help me out here. Don't you think that it would be beneficial to have them look at the developments individually but consider them, consider what is happening in the area together? • • Subdivision Committee November 15, 2001 Page 21 Petrie. Conklin: Yes, we would probably need to look at both scenarios. I mean he could say "Ifthis develops on its own, these are my findings..." "Ifthis area develops with this other development, that is independent from this, these are other findings." Ward: I have a motion to table, do I have a second? Hoover: I'll second. Ward: I'll concur. Thank you. • • • Subdivision Committee November 15, 2001 Page 22 LSD 01-38.00 Large Scale Development (American Electric, pp 328) was submitted by Ms. Carole Jones of McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc. on behalfofMr. Ashley Beasley of American Electric Power for property located at 2201 N. Gregg Street. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 9 08 acres. An electrical substation is proposed. Ward: The next item on the agenda this morning is LSD 01-38, Large Scale Development submitted by Ms. Carole Jones of McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc. on behalfofMr. Ashley Beasley of American Electric Power for property located at 2201 N. Gregg Street. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy CommerciallLight Industrial and contains approximately 9.08 acres. An electrical substation is proposed. Tim, are you going to handle this one? Conklin: Sure. This is AEP's new substation. The site currently has one single family home on it. The applicant will be dedicating right of way for the future construction of Garrett Drive which is off of Gregg, it goes over back to the west. Over on Garland Avenue, Ernie Jacks Blvd., it is not boulevard. Ernie Jacks comes over there where Crafton Place apartments is located and I don't think you see that on your map here because it doesn't go far enough over. That is the street right of way that they will be dedicating. The proposal is for a new electrical substation for new lines and poles. There is R-2 property to the west, R-1 to the south, I-1 to the north and east. Currently there is 25.5% of the site with tree canopy. The applicant is proposing to preserve 15.2% tree canopy. The requirement is for 15%. Staff is recommending approval at this level. There are really no conditions to address. They've worked with staff to look at the right of way dedication for a future sti eet, since they are really adding no traffic at this location, other than building a substation, staff is not making any recommendations with regard to street improvements because the right of way alone for the collector street is being dedicated without any traffic really being generated from this site. There was some discussion, and I guess I will let Eric talk about the potential for a future land dedication for a green way trail, that is about it. Ward: Ok. I give up, where are these pads and things going to be setting? Right in here? Jones: Yes, this is the detail of it. Ward: Ok, I see. Eric? Schuldt: Since this is a commercial development there were no parks fees or dedication requirements. We did request atrail easement for future trail along Skull Creek and that was adapted and Carole, we appreciate that. We're still in the process of probably a conservation treatment of some sort. I'm working out the details of that but we do appreciate that land. Subdivision Committee November 15, 2001 Page 23 Ward: Is that shown on here? Jones: Yes, this is just a proposed. Steve wanted to meet me and go to the site. Schuldt: He has gone to the site and he felt this area was workable. Ward: It says proposed 28' trail easement, is that what is on the plat? Jones: Yes. Conklin: That is something they are volunteering, we can't require that. Carole, Just one question have, we talked about this little piece of property up here. Have you talked to AEP about whether they just want.. . Jones: Give you the whole? I think they needed that section of area there. Conklin: Ok, that is fine. It is pretty much a remnant piece that is not developable. Jones: Right. ??: I think most of that is going to fall within our right of way line here and that transmission Jones: It is really just that little strip. Conklin: Ok, that is fine. You are going to own the property. I shouldn't have to worry about someone trying to build something on it in the future. Ward: They've got, which drive are you going to use to get to the transformers and so on? Jones: There is an existing.. . Ward: Coming off Gregg Street. Jones: Yes Sir, they're widening up. Ward: Ok, I was trying to see if you were coming offof Gregg or Burgess, but you're coming off of Gregg Street, ok. • • • • Subdivision Committee November 15, 2001 Page 24 Conklin: It is actually a very good site in my opinion, for this facility. It is not along an existing major road. It is hidden back in there. Ward: Yes, it is kind of back behind Ridout. Jones: There's a berm, an open berm. Bunch: A question conceming this road. If and when the dedicated street comes to reality, would we want to relocate that to where this comes in from the new street and then possibly landscape this? Looking at a future situation, we could wind up with parallel roads serving no purpose. I see now that it needs to be there because it is the access, but in the future, if this street develops, then that is just an extra amount of pavement, or gravel that really doesn't need to be there. Conklin: I think they go to the site once every month or so. Really, we were just going to leave it there. If you think it needs to be worked out now. Bunch: I don't know that it does, just maybe a comment made about it because we're looking at the, you know, we are planning and looking toward the future. This is an opportunity to remove some street ways and put in something where it would be less visible from Gregg and improve the appearance of it. It is one of those locations where it is jut kind oftucked back in. That is not a hard task, just an observation. Ward: Ok, thanks Don. Ron, are there any comments from engineering? Petrie: No, they've addressed all my comments. Ward: Ok. Kim? Hesse: I have no additional comments. Just as we go through the final I'll need the tree preservation plan. Some of the areas that are shown have grading. Ward: Ok, thank you. Keith, why don't you tell us a little bit about the sidewalk situation? Shreve: They have approximately 145' frontage on the old Gregg Street and we requested that equivalent length of sidewalk be constructed on the east side of the four lane on the new Gregg Street. Ward: What is across over there now? Subdivision Committee November 15, 2001 Page 25 Shreve: SWEPCO. Ward: SWEPCO is over there? Jones: Yes, they are in favor of doing that because it is in front of their property on that side. Shreve: Sweetser with the development of his mini storage and Upchurch, it is a continuation of the sidewalk on the east side of Gregg. Ward: That is a great project. I would love to have sidewalks all up and down at least one side of Gregg Street. This was done in lieu of cash or this was a volunteer type of deal? Shreve: We are moving the sidewalk to a more reasonable location. Ward: Carole, did you have any other comments that you would like to make on this project? At this time I would like to open it up to the public. Is there anyone who would like to make a public comment on this particular item? Stout: Sir, I would just like to know, they're not going to use Easy Street at all right? Ward: No, Easy Street will not be used at all. They will be totally coming in and off of Gregg Street. Stout: How far back in there is this going to be located off of Easy Street? Conklin: It is 260 feet, 280 approximately. Ward: Would you give us your name for the record? Stout: Roy Stout, I live at 2014 Easy Street. Ward: Ok, thank you Sir. Stout: Thank you. Ward: Is there anyone else that would like to make public comment at this time on this item? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and I'll bring it back to our Commissioners. • • • • Subdivision Committee November 15, Page 26 Bunch: Jones: Bunch: Jones: Bunch: Jones: Bunch: Jones: Ward: Hoover: Jones: 2001 I have a question for Carole, all of these existing structures that are shown, will they all be removed? They will all be removed eventually. They are going to clean the whole site. All of the old chicken barns and pole barns and slabs and all of that sort of stuff will be removed? Right. Will there be extensive site work in the area of this gravel drive? Just a little widening. It is all on down? Well, there is going to be a little improvement to this drainage ditch that comes along and also a new drainage pipe under the new gravel drive because this 24" existing I think seems to backup and flood and this is a 48" up here at Ridout so we're trying to match that so the site will drain better through there. Of course, this all drains into Skull Creek. Any other questions? I have a couple. Is there any outdoor lighting at this facility? I don't think there is any proposed lighting. I think there is a street light up here at the corner at Gregg possibly but I don't think there is any proposed. Campbell: No, there will be some lighting internal for the substation when it is constructed. Hoover: Conklin: Campbell: What kind of lighting and how much of that might there be? We're next to a R-1 right? Yes, to the south. Probably one, maybe two flood lights, the actual design of the station itself is not completed yet. It is typical of some of our other substations around the area is generally one maybe two flood lights and just light the infrastructure of the stations • Subdivision Committee November 15, 2001 Page 27 Hoover: Is there any way we should shield? Can we add that if there is any lighting that it is shielded from the R-1 neighborhood? Conklin: Yes, shielded and directed away from the R-1 and R-2, residential neighborhood. That is a good idea. Hoover: My other question is on the fencing, it says chain-link fence with security top. What kind of fence is this going to have? Is that the old fence or what kind of fence does this have? Jones: It was my understanding it was going to be a 6' chain-link fence. Conklin: Is it going to have razor or barbed wire on it? Campbell: Most of it will have the barbed wire on the top of it to keep anyone from climbing over and getting inside the substation for security. Hoover: Is that within our ordinance? I thought we couldn't have that on the top. • Conklin: This is I-1, it is a unique situation for a substation. It talks about building. • Hoover: I guess it depends on where it is. I don't know. Where does the fence go? Jones: No, it is just here. Hoover: There is not going to be anything along... Jones: There is some existing. Hoover: All of that gets removed, is that correct? Campbell: Probably so. The fencing that they're talking about there is just the substation property itself and that is for security reasons to keep kids or anyone else from climbing into an energized substation. Jones: It is really a safety thing. Hoover: The rest of the grounds are going to be open. • Subdivision Committee November 15, 2001 Page 28 Conklin: This is what it says in the UDO. "Chain link is prohibited closer to the street than the front of a building in a zoning district C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4 and R-0..." This is an I-1, we don't regulate it. Hoover: Ok, and Elm Street doesn't go through on the master street plan? Conklin: No. Elm Street, it is just platted right of way existing. There is a street, Elm Street does go along this south property line. Right? Jones: Yes. Conklin: I've been out there a few times. We're getting additional right of way off of this property, 25' so it is already existing. Hoover: The road already exists? Petrie: The right of way already exists. • Conklin: Elm goes back to the east at that point. It has been a while since I've been out there. Jones: It is on the east side of Gregg. Conklin: Ok. We're doing the same thing that we required for Ridout Lumber, the dedication of the right of way. Ward: Bunch: Jones: Any other questions or comments? On the containment for the transformer oil, that shows it connected to a substation, is that for the oil or for the water? For water, sewer and water. Or if the water and oil spill, you know, the spill prevention, EPA regulations require that you be able to contain and grant to a sum so you can remove it, pump it out. Bunch: This is all being accomplished with the containment path as opposed to having berms around the site? Jones: That is correct. Now this actual, the transformer pad is really the inter rectangle and the outside pad is the container. Subdivision Committee November 15, 2001 Page 29 Conklin: One of the reasons it is in this location is they stayed out of the hundred year flood plain area also. That makes sense, we don't want to flood our substations. Jones: Motion: Bunch: Right. Ok, I'll move that we approve LSD 01-38.00 with the additional condition of shielding the lighting and directing it away from R -1s at this level. Hoover: I'lI second. Ward: I'll concur. Thanks Carole. • • Subdivision Committee November 15, 2001 Page 30 PPL 01-6.00 Preliminary Plat (Watkins, pp 650) was submitted by Bob Hill ofNickle-Hill Group, Inc. on behalf of Lorene Watkins Trust for property located at 2551 Mally Wagnon Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 40 acres with 10 lots proposed. Ward: Our next item on the agenda is a PPL 01-6.00 submitted by Bob Hill ofNickle-Hill Group, Inc. on behalf of Lorene Watkins Trust for property located at 2551 Mally Wagnon Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 40 acres with 10 lots proposed. Tim, are you going to take this one? Conklin: Sure. This is located in Washington County within our Planning Area. Our ordinance requirements are different from inside the city and outside the city. With regard to street improvements, our regulations state that if it is not adjacent to our city limits that the county street standards apply, not the city street standards. Staff is recommending this go to the full Planning Commission. It is a preliminary plat. Conditions to address, an 8" water line shall be extended along Leo Ammons Road to the southem boundary of the subdivision. County approval shall be obtained for this subdivision. Any street improvements required will have to be determined at the county level. That is all we have for the city. Ward: So this is in the county? Conklin: In the county within our planning area. Lots will be on septic systems. They are all over an acre and half so we don't require proof at this time that it can handle that. City water will be utilized for their water service. Ward: Ok, so as far as sidewalks? Shreve: No requirements. Ward: No requirements, landscaping, none. Ron, is there anything about engineering besides that 8" water line? Petrie: Just to ask, pretty much we were discussing this service line going across this. Have you all researched any of that or found out anymore about that? Hill: No I haven't. Petrie: If it is feeding this area back to the south we may need to get that water line relocated back along the road so it won't go through the middle of these lots. • • • Subdivision Committee November 15, 2001 Page 31 Reed: Can't you get the water department to check on that? I mean if there is a meter there and somebody is paying for it, it seems like you might be a better person to find out where that leads than us. Conklin: Is this a private or public line Ron? Hill: Here is someone that lives up there next door that knows exactly where the water line is. Maybe he could speak. Nxon: It's not open to the public. Hill: Can we not ask him that? Ward: You may introduce yourself and talk to us. Nixon: Thanks Lee. I'm Larry Nixon, I own the property east of there. I was raised in the area, all of my family is in that area, we came from that area and the whole nine yards. I am sitting along with Mike Whitehead who is also a descendent ofthe property owners which were raised on that mountain up to their grandparents. We are with Lorraine as far as her intentions for the property. I have encouraged her to get on with her life and get some of the burden she has got up there. Kermit and I was great friends and we really appreciate Lorraine as a neighbor for all of these years We do have a concern up there. The addressing of the water. We at times, on record through the water department, we've had service call after service call after service call because we are limited to a 4" water line. We do run out of water. You can be standing in the shower and you run out of water, you turn on your dishwasher and you run out of water. The gas is located approximately 300- 350 feet east of any of this property and it is dead ended. It is not sized at this time to facilitate any of the natural gas that serves this area. The line would have to be upgraded or brought up the hill from the bottom of the hill, which it runs up to the lower end of the hill. There is no, the line is not serviced out there for any fire protection, no fire meters or anything, so it would need to be brought up to that. The line that you are talking about, the water service that goes across the property feeds the Ammons which is down below on the bottom of the hill. This was an agreement with Kermit back when. He allowed them to run that water line and that meter across his property out through the gate, clear across the middle of that flat and down the tire line down the other side, down through that property. Petrie. I don't know where down the hill is. • • Subdivision Committee November 15, 2001 Page 32 Nixon: If you will excuse me, I haven't seen... I never did get that information you said you would give me on the plat and how it was laid out. Hill: I didn't give you one of these? Nixon: You never did send it to me so I have never seen it. Hill: I'm sorry, 1 do apologize. Nixon: This is Leo Ammons, the meter is right here, this is my property, it comes all the way down, right along the gate and goes through the back gate right here and up the hill like this and down the tire line right there This was one of these things that they built down there and they needed water down there and Kermit said go ahead and put it out there, I don't care. One of the neighbors down there needed access to build chicken houses down below, Kermit said cut a road. That is the kind of neighbor he was and that is the kind of neighbor that everybody up there is. These people down at the bottom are dependent on this water and their meter. My property is right here. One of the other concerns that I have is this 11 acres here drains across me. Every bit of this property right here comes across me. This also drains across down on the side. If we're putting in a septic system is anything going through the EPA, any studies like that done as far as the drainage? I'm a little bit concerned as to the theory, because all of it drains across me. When we put septic systems in, all of those out there now, typically are some special enzyme system or approximately 450' of lateral line, they are all shallow because they are hydration lines because the hillside in that area is wet. We also are a little bit concemed about the traffic. We put 40 places out there and I guess we could use a little upgrade from the county on the road or something. Center lines, we would like to have some type of traffic control. We're talking probably three cars per household and 10 lots, we're talking another 30 vehicles plus. If anybody has got any other questions about how the land lays or anything like that, I can certainly answer those because I was raised there. Ward: Ok, thank you Larry. Bob, is this just going to be convened by 10 lots that can not be split again, that type of thing? Single family residences with certain amount of sq.ft. Hill: We haven't put a restriction on the size but we have restricted it to no commercial operations of any type, whether it is agricultural or commercial or anything else. Ward: What about mobile homes? ® Hill: No modular homes, no mobile homes. We have restricted designs. • Subdivision Committee November 15, 2001 Page 33 Ward: Nixon: Hill: Nixon: Ok. I have approximately $200,000+ home and I would like some of those. That is what we want out there also and we're going to price the lots where that is going to dictate that. I do know that there is one being priced out there now that is like 1,400 feet up on that south lot on the seven acres because the contractor called me the other night and wanted to know what the property was like. He is accessing off of this road right here. Ward: This comes through us first and then goes through the county? Conklin: Yes. Ward: Ok, and we can't approve it at this level, it has to go on up to the full Planning Commission. Nixon: That 8" water line will have to be brought clear from the highway. Petrie: I need to do some more research because I wasn't aware of any plans for this 4", the 8" would lust connect to this 4" at this time. We need to do some more research on the capacity we have on this 4". Ward: Ok. Is there anyone else that would like to make public comment? Ok. Silkwood: I'm the Washington County Planning Director, we have a requirement of 10' side setback and you're just showing an 8'. You just have a note over on the right hand side of the plat there. We will need a 10' side setback. The road Superintendent will not be requiring any road improvements but he does want you to write the right of way, the r/w by the figures. Do you see what I'm saying? So that you've got a 30' right of way, but it doesn't say r/w right next to the 30' and he would like that and also we'll need our signature blocks and have you done adjacent property owner notification? We'lljust need proof that you did that, a list or something. Conklin: The road coming in, this one, Leo Ammons is paved? Nixon: No, Leo Ammons is dirt. Chip and seal. • • • Subdivision Committee November 15, 2001 Page 34 Conklin: Nixon: Reed: Ward: Silkwood: Nixon: Ward: Whitehead: Ward: Whitehead: Ward: Nixon: Ward: Reed: Ward: Just so everybody is aware of that, we're dealing with chip and seal, MaIly Wagnon and Leo Ammons. Yes, it is approximately 15'-16' wide. It is a 20' gravel road, they measured twice. It is on the plat too, it says 20' gravel road right below Leo Ammons. Ok. We would probably require a greenspace. There is also a cemetery I'm concerned with and I would like that as a matter of public record. Are there any other comments? My name is Mike Whitehead. My only other comment as far as the road is, we are on a steep hill there. I know we only have bad weather two or three times a year, it makes it hard to get up and down. Most people who live up there have known long enough that four wheel drives are needed. You start adding more cars and there are two ways out, either off of Mally or down Van House, Van House runs straight into the highway off of it and to the field to avoid it, it is steeper. If people pile up at the bottom it makes it hard for other people to get up and down the hill. Ok, and your property is east of Larry's? Yes. In fact, it is almost before the road but actually curves back. Ok. Any other comments? We don't mind the idea of any of this, it is just the matter of addressing these concerns. Ok, Allen? Can we talk a little bit more about the water line at this point? Sure. • • • Subdivision Committee November 15, 2001 Page 35 Reed: Since we have got Ron in the room with us and everything, the water line that comes off of Hwy 16 is 4" PVC, is that right Ron? Petrie: Yes Sir. Reed: The city is asking for 8" to be hooked onto that? Petrie: Right. Reed: Now is the city going to upgrade that 4" to an 8"? Petrie: I don't know. Reed: Is that in their capital improvement plan or anything like that? Petrie: I don't believe it is. Reed: Is there any kind, can you explain to me why you need to have a larger pipe than what you have the flow to handle? Petrie: Well, primarily because we have a 4" line that should've been an 8" line to start with. We want to start off with a size it is going to end up with 20 years from now, because the next guy down at this house here is going to want to put in some lots. Reed: Where does the city anticipate that 8" line on Leo Ammons going to? How many people does it anticipate serving in the future? Have they been out and looked at the site? Petrie: I don't know the answer to that. That is why we're here. Reed: Ok, I know when you get past this property you fall off the side of a mountain to the bottom of the White River which has a different water line serving those people. We're looking at a dead end. It seems almost like an overkill to have this huge pipe that is going to go another maybe, I don't know, 800-1,000 feet then stop. Conklin: Won't you need that for fire protection, if it is ever upgraded or a subdivision? Petrie: Our minimum water standards, you have got a dead end line, it has to be 8", that is what it says. • • • Subdivision Committee November 15, 2001 Page 36 Hill: I visited with the Engineering Department on two separate occasions, and since this is the first time I've ever done this, I visited with the Engineering Department on two separate occasions. Both times I was told a 2" line would be sufficient. What I'm trying to provide water to is three lots and to a 63 acre tract we're hoping to sale to someone that is going to have a nice little estate back there. I'm trying to provide water to four houses and I was told on two separate occasions that a 2" line would be sufficient. That is what we did all of the planning and budgeting on and 1 will tell you that the lady that is doing this has limited resources. What you are proposing, and I've even heard the word fire hydrant a couple of times, you're increasing her budget significantly in doing that. As Allen says, it looks like over kill, it is not going anywhere. I can't imagine development going on toward the top of the hill or down around the corner towards the White River in the foreseeable future at all. All of that land is owned back there by one family. Nixon: They're already adding another dwelling down the hill. Conklin: If they wanted fire protection, fire hydrants out there, that is our standard we do right now, if we have urban development regulations. Just to put everybody on notice, Judge Hunton did an Executive Order saying that we could enforce our urban subdivision regulations within one mile of the city. However, our subdivision regulations state that right now that if it is not contiguous you would follow the county standards. I'm working with the director to come up with an annexation policy and part of our discussion was going to be on if we do annex areas like this into the city, what kind of subdivision standards should we have. These home owners will be likely purchasing fire contracts with the city so home owner's insurance can be reduced and I'm sure if they are ever annexed, they will be wanting the city to upgrade the system and I think that what Ron is stating that we need to have the right size lines in here to upgrade for the future. That is something that we're working on because it is an issue. What is going to happen in Washington County, you asked that. You are seeing it right here. Large lots, single family homes. These are not farming operations. Reed: Does the city provide fire protection to these people right now? Nixon: No, we only have a 4" line and it is depleted. Reed: I'm Just saying does the city come out.. . Conklin: You can purchase fire contracts within a certain district. Whitehead: Round Mountain provides contracts in that area • Subdivision Committee November 15, 2001 Page 37 Nixon: I purchase from the city too. Conklin: I guess my point is, we talked about urban sprawl and what sprawl is and how we're planning the future of northwest Arkansas. This is something that we need to look at because this is happening all over the county, gravel roads fall apart during ice storms, people can't get out, it is serious. Hill: I appreciate what you're saying Tim. Is it not common to go into subdivisions with these 4-6" lines? Do you have 8" lines in every subdivision in Fayetteville? Petrie: Anything in the city itself, absolutely. For probably at least ten years. Hill: So if I were to come to the city and create a cul de sac that had ten lots on it, I would put an 8" water line in there? Petrie: Yes. Conklin: In some cities currently right now, the city of Farmington enforces their urban subdivision regulations in their Planning Area. Judge Hunton, correct me if I'm wrong Celia, I think that Executive Order was to kind of reign in some of these communities that were going out five miles and enforcing higher standards. Fayetteville has never done that. It is something that we're discussing because it is going to be impacting us in the future, how we provide service and how we annex these types of subdivisions into our system. Ward: How far are these? Does it go 300' off of Hwy 16 and then it would be.. . Reed: About another mile I think. Nixon: I'm 1.1 mile to my driveway. Conklin: Probably a half mile. Ward: Allen, do you have any other questions? Reed: Since the city doesn't have an 8" line out there, yet they want this man to put an 8" line, is there any help from the city? Ward: I can't answer that. What happens when you have got water coming from a 4" line going • into an 8" line, is there any pressure at all? • • Subdivision Committee November 15, 2001 Page 38 Petrie: It still works. Ward: Ok. Petrie. This is a looped 4", so you actually have two different directions to go this way. The only way for us to know what is going to happen is to have that requirement, an 8" line. The way we have to look at it is if we don't continue to make a bad situation worse. If we put in a 2" here and this 40 acres develops with 2 acre lots, they are going to have to go all the way back to here and start over. At some point, you have to draw the line on how you feed it. I'm telling you what the requirements state, an 8". Ward: Sure, ok. Reed: Can we take the 8" then, instead oftaking it to the south property line to feed the neighbor or whatever, can we just take it to the north line of lot 7 and 8, that would be the last two lots on this development. Nixon: The only problem there is we're already depleted in the 4" so the size of the line that you're putting in for the subline is not really the problem. The problem we're having is that the line we've already got there is depleted with the water supply, so regardless, ifyou put another 4" or another 8", ifyou put 10 more households, you don't have enough water up there to supply that on top of that mountain. Reed: I think the city is going to look at that though, at just how much water they have there. That is kind of hard to believe that there isn't enough water. Nixon: Hill: Nixon: Reed: The line right now comes up Van House to the tank and it comes around the tank and it goes on the west side of the road all the way down Malty Wagnon, but it feeds every household on that mountain. And then back down 130, do you know how many households that is? I don't know all total. Is there a way we can shorten the length of that line so that we don't have to incur all of that cost of having an 8" line when the city only has a 4" line? Petrie: It would take a waiver from the Planning Commission to do that. • • Subdivision Committee November 15, 2001 Page 39 Ward: All you're really talking about is 300'? Reed: Yes, 300'. Ward: You might get a waiver for that. Reed: That might help offset some of the cost in that first 500'. Ward: It sounds like what you really need to do first, before this thing comes to the full Planning Commission is, I don't know who it is, I guess the city Water Department, it sounds like we don't have enough water or water pressure out there to provide adequately for ten more houses out there, just from what I've heard of the adjoining neighbors. This needs to be finalized before we approve this because you don't want to be out there selling off lots and people building homes and then all ofa sudden, they can't take a shower. That becomes a very bad situation. Hill: This is the first that we've heard of this. I wish that this would've been brought to our attention six months ago and we wouldn't be sitting here. Nixon: I didn't know until the sign came up out there. There is a record with the city Water Department, there have been a number of trips from Don Osbome and Mr. Harrison and all those out to regulate. What we have is when the City of Elkins took over the tank mainly on the east side, there is a valve in that tank and when the requirements for the water from the City of Elkins is they open that valve when it feeds out there, it depletes our system completely. We'll be hours without anything sometimes. That is when we call the city, the city comes out, we get a little run and then the more houses that turn on and then there is nothing This is documented over the last ten years. They've made numerous trips out to get the water flow back on so we can just have something to drink. Ward: Well, it will definitely have to be addressed. Hill: This is the first we've heard of it, I'm sorry it hasn't been addressed. Ward: I still think we can probably go ahead. Do you want us to table this right now or do you want us to forward it? Hill: We want to try to go forward. • • • Subdivision Committee November 15, 2001 Page 40 Ward: You see what our concerns would be. Right now, I would not approve this at the full Planning Commission knowing that there is a problem with no water out there a lot of times. Hill: Is that something we can address and figure out what the problem is between now and then? Ward: Hopefully, that is what you've got to do or else it won't be approved. Hill: Who do we go to talk to about that? I understand their concems and comments, but there has got to be some documentation with the city that they've gone out and tested it or something if there have been complaints. Is that your office Ron or who do we go to? Petrie: Ward: Petrie: Hill: Reed: You would go to Water and Sewer Maintenance Division. I will have to get with them. They' 11 have to test it and then our people will be study it. We'll have ten lots on there. It is not particularly my job to figure whether we can do it or not, it is more or less your job to justify it can be done. I've got a staff of one to review these developments. I don't have time to do a study on this. I understand. I don't think that is what we're really worried about. We can find out the facts on the pressure and the complaints. That is the Water and Sewer Department, that is who we go to. We've got this issue, how do we resolve that? That is fair because we need to work on the extension of the water line anyway. We're going to have to get the numbers together for the extension of the 8", we'll find out what is going on with the water line anyway when we do that. Ward: Is there any other water lines out in that area coming from other directions? Petrie: It is all 4". Bunch: How long is it down on the highway? What is that 16 that you're calling the highway? Petrie: Yes, Hwy 16. That is a 10" or 12". • • • Subdivision Committee November 15, 2001 Page 41 Bunch: Ok, that is what basically goes to Elkins? There was some mention made of a water tower. Nixon Petrie: There is a holding tank. See, that is on the corner up above Lake Sequoyah on Van House. You turn up there. The holding tank was put by the city up there originally to supply gravity flow to that east area. Then Elkins with the White River Water Association tapped onto that service out there and uses that as their primary service to come in. Now, a few years ago, I think the Water Department allocated control of that line, or rededicated that line to the service of the City of Elkins. They actually pay Elkins to maintain the valves and the whole nine yards. On the other hand, we service off of that tank but it is controlled by the City of Elkins. The only way we can get anything done, we call in and then Don or Harrison or somebody comes out and takes over and they have a talk with Elkins and we get some water flow. Ours is just old. It serviced the needs that we had out there when they originally done that but now the populous is gaining with all of the subdivisions in the valley and all the houses along the highway now and across the lake and in the Elkins area, subdivision after subdivision, water flow has just depleted. I wasjust looking at a map, it did not raise any concems to me. I would not have thought it would have been a problem to attach to that line. I think there are some more issues having to do with elevations of some of these mountains. Conklin: I was wondering 1550.. . Ward: Do they need some more pumps or is there not enough water up there? Petrie: You can build another tank and you can not have water. Bunch: Do all these water associations tie into this also? Petrie: Yes. They tie on the other side and they keep going further east into the White River Valley. You've got tanks in the area, you're not necessarily feeding through the service lines to get it to the tank. Reed: Just so I understand, when Elkins turns the tap on, the Fayetteville supply goes down. Nixon: When the demand, not necessarily Elkins, but when the demand for all of the housing out there comes on in the afternoon, in the morning at peak times and stuff like that, we're out of water. • • • Subdivision Committee November 15, 2001 Page 42 Reed: Nixon: Reed: Ward: Nixon: Ward: Bunch: Petrie: Reed: Nixon: Reed: You mentioned something about Elkins being the cause? They regulate, they have the system now from the tank on. The city turned that over to them or sold that line to them out there to supply them water which is part of the east loop that we come off. The loop comes from the Highway 1.1 up to my place, it goes 1.3 down to the other place. It is all a 4" line, it is serviced from that tank. Either that or it is pressure, all for the highway, to push it all the way up there from the highway on the west side. So we only need to address Fayetteville or is there something that we need to address with Elkins? I think that is Fayetteville. I think they're fine off of the tank. We're just the step child on the back side of the mountain. - It seems like Ron has got the grasp of it. I don't think that is where your problem is. I think there is too much elevation or not enough pumps or something to get the water through there. Any other questions9 Just a comment. If we have water situations where we're actually running out of water, we can get into serious health concerns with back flows and that sort of thing. This is something that definitely needs to be looked at. If somebody's back flow preventers aren't working right then there is an awful lot ofstuffthat can get in these lines and I am surprised you don't have boil orders everyday if you're running out everyday. If you have air in the lines that makes for an interesting situation. One thing that they need to do too is there is a private service line across their property. That needs to be located. You're going to have to get some type of easement or something. Maybe Mr. Nixon could show us where the line is so we can add it to the plat. I can pretty much walk it out. Ok, that's fine. Subdivision Committee November 15, 2001 Page 43 Bunch: It doesn't take that long to get the line on the drawing but I wonder if this needs to be forwarded or tabled until we have some sort of clear reading on what the water situation is. There is no sense in trying to supply water to seven lots.. . Hill We can't afford to sale lots without water too. My question is who do we go to? There has got to be some documentation of "I don't have any water " People calling Ward: That is what Ron is saying. Petrie. Paul Mitchell with the Water and Sewer Division and Don Osborne is with the Meter Division. You should talk to those two. That is who I'm going to talk to. Hill: What was the last person's name? Petrie. Don Osborne. Hill: Ok, and Paul who? Conklin: Paul Mitchell. Paul Mitchell is with the Water and Sewer Division and Osbome is with the Meter Division. Bunch: Tim, you said that normally on preliminary plats you don't look at septic systems, that would come off final plats? Maybe Celia can answer that. Silkwood: We typically recommend that they get a perk test and that they bring a letter from the Health Department stating they own the lots. The individual lot owners will need to as well. Hill: That is done after we get preliminary from both the city and the county, then we get the perk tests. Is that correct? Silkwood: Well, what did we decide on that Tim? Conklin: That is why I asked you Celia. Silkwood: I think we decided that we will need a letter on final plat. Conklin: Sorry Celia, we haven't had a subdivision in the county in a year so we've been doing lot split after lot split and family exemptions. • • Subdivision Committee November 15, 2001 Page 44 Silkwood: We'll say final. We need a letter of approval at final plat. Conklin: I would rather do final plat because you don't know what you're going to end up with right here until you get preliminary plat approval and then at least that is set and you know what your requirements are. I don't want you to spend a lot of money without knowing if you can do this. Hill: Ok, we would prefer that. Ward: I would say Bob that you could probably work with the neighbors there. They can give you a lot of contacts since they have been fighting this for a while now. Nixon: I'll help you all I can. I'm not an enemy to Lorraine, I'm just protecting my interests. Ward: I think we should table this for the time being. Bunch: I think so too. Ward: You can go ahead and make a motion. Motion: Bunch: I don't want to penalize the applicant but at the same time I don't want to penalize the existing residents. It is a nice looking project but with the water problems, I can't see until they are resolved, I can't see adding to the problem. I will move that we table this PPL 01-6.00 pending more information on the water situation. Ward: Do I have a second? Hoover: I'll second. When does the next Subdivision Committee meet? Conklin: November 29th. Ward: Ok, it doesn't give you a lot of time but it gives you some time to get on our next agenda. We're ready to approve this. Hill: Ok, we just need to resolve and come with either we have water or we don't. I guess that is what we have to resolve before November 29th? • Subdivision Committee November 15, 2001 Page 45 Ward: That is the thing you will have to resolve. You will probably have to ask for a waiver. We'll have to send this to the full Planning Commission to ask for that waiver of not putting 300' of that 8" pipe out there. That is one waiver you'll have to ask for. Bunch: Looking at the future, this may be a site question This road that goes to the south of Leo Ammons Road, a comment was made that there was a different water system? Reed: I think that is the one that goes up the mountain to the White River Valley. Hill: These are all private water lines, these are not city lines. Bunch: I'm getting confused when they say it falls off the mountain to the White River. The middle fork is to the east and the west fork is.. . Reed: Right there on Black Oak Road, that is right below this. The White River is just back to the east and then Black Oak kind of ties into it. Bunch: That is where I was getting kind of confused. What I was looking at was to the south and • goes back to it. • Nixon: The middle fork of the White River, it all drops off into the Harrison Strain Community. Bunch: Ok. Ward: Thank you. Subdivision Committee November 15, 2001 Page 46 PPL 01-7.00 Preliminary Plat (Fairfield Subdivision Phase III, pp 359) was submitted by Philip Humbard of Engineering Services on behalf of Cross Creek, LLC for property located north and east of 51st Street and Jess Anderson Road The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 19.45 acres with 63 lots proposed. Ward: The final item on the agenda is a preliminary plat submitted by Philip Humbard of Engineering Services on behalf of Cross Creek, LLC for property located north and east of 51st Street and Jess Anderson Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 19.45 acres with 63 lots proposed. Who is taking this one? Conklin: I'll take it. This property, the actual development, Fairfield Subdivision, was brought into the city on two different annexations, two different rezonings. We are looking at Phase III today. This is a preliminary plat for Phase III. This will need to go to the full Planning Commission. Phase III is located north of Phase I and II, it adjoins Bridgeport Subdivision to the west where Bridgeport Subdivision is back over to the east. They purchased additional property. The Parks Board has met, they recommended that park land be dedicated. Steve Hatfield, our Trails and Greenways Coordinator, has been out there and walked this property and has been working with the owner and developer to make sure a trail can be put in on this park land. Conditions to address, the applicant shall stake the northem property boundary ofthe subdivision. This is being required to determine if the property dedicated as parkland is adequate to facilitate construction of trails in regard to topography, if we determine it is not adequate some redesign of the subdivision will be required. This plat shall be reheard at the next Subdivision Committee meeting in order to allow staff to reexamine the plat with regard to any changes. Schuldt: What Steve has been trying to do is the plat images that you have given, they don't match up. He has two on his computer and they don't match up. What we would really like to see is to get these boundaries staked so he can actually see it. We would approve it on the computer but we can't get it to match up. Humbard: Well we staked the boundary when it was at the other and now we have moved it 24' south. Schuldt: When we look at the computer images, we lay them on top of each other, it is not 24' in all locations. • • • Subdivision Committee November 15, 2001 Page 47 Humbard: Schuldt: Humbard: Edwards: Humbard: Conklin: Humbard: Schuldt: Conklin: Ward: Conklin: Well, you know, we have talked about those lots 106,107 and 108 that are now 108,109 and 110, that's where the main problem was is that we pulled that back. Then over here on lots 103, 104 and 105, we've adjusted those. Right, when we lay our two plats on top of each other, the ones on 103,104 and 105, it shows about 10' to 12', that is our greatest concern because of that block right there. We talked with Sara yesterday and the only way for us to actually figure it out is if we stake it and go out and look at it. It might all be fine. So we're going to table this project for two weeks because.. . No, that is if it turns out to be inadequate. Oh, ok. That is if it is not fine, go out there and stake it so we can walk out there and look at it again. I mean goodness, we redesigned the whole Phase III to accommodate you.. . You've been wonderful to work with, but we've gone this far, we don't want to not miss it, we want to make sure we get it right. What we have done to kind of update the Subdivision Committee and to explain this to the Commission. Originally they had 50' rights of way in local streets throughout this development. We've gone back in order to try to get a trail at the top of the bluff and on top of the hill, we went back and looked at our other street standards to allow for 24' streets. We've gone back to Waverley Road, Chimon Way and Redding Way which is in Phase I, which we're asking you to consider allowing a 24' street which requires only a 42' right ofway, that is going to pull everything back down to the south. There is a large Chinkopin Oak tree. You have to see this tree. It could be one of the largest in the state. Oak? Oak not chestnut. It is very large. In order to get the trail in with the property lines and the utility easements, that is the other reason we looked at moving the rights ofway down from 50' to 42'. They have been great to work with to accommodate that. We just want to make sure we get the trail. That is number one. Number two is all lots that do not measure 70' in width from the lot line shall be dimensioned at 25' beyond the setback line. • Subdivision Committee November 15, 2001 Page 48 Our ordinance states that the building setbacks are measured at the rear of the required front setback. It can't be less than 80% of the required lot width. We just want to make sure that they are all measuring out. Why don't you get with Sara after this meeting and we can go over the individual lot numbers. Bunch: The reason for the 50' right of way initially was to be able to get the lot width to get your lots... Humbard: Down here on Stephanie we did that. We have actually gone back and redesigned those lots to get to the 70'. Conklin: We just want to make sure that we're meeting our current zoning since it is a brand new subdivision. Humbard: I do think we have that now. We'll dimension any of them that you want. Conklin: It is hard for us to take the scale and determine it is exactly 70' ,we just want to check that. Number three, a sewer system in the amount of $13,000. That is $200 per lot, 65 lots, that shall be paid prior to filing the final plat. Number four, applicant is requesting to revise Phase I to decrease the right of way for Redding Way from 50' to 42', that is once again, the trail and the tree. Number five, sidewalks shall be shown on Sunshine Road south of Newbridge Road, the requirement is for a 6' sidewalk and 10' greenspace. Number six, Planning Commission determination of improvements to Sunshine Road. Sunshine Road is classified as a principal arterial on our Master Street Plan. Staffis recommending that Sunshine Road be improved directly adjacent to this development in the following manner. The east side of Sunshine Road shall be widened to meet local street standards, the west side widened to meet county street standards. Once again, Sunshine Road is along the western boundary of all three phases. Number seven, the developer is required to submit a study of the Zone A to FEMA and to obtain approval of the map revision prior to submitting the final plat. This flood plain in Zone A will have to be studied. Flood way boundaries will be determined and that will keep development out of the flood way. Number eight, all open space, including Zone A will be maintained by the POA. Number nine, a note on the plat that the proposed R-1 shall be altered to read current. Edwards: They've got zoning proposed R-1, change that from proposed to current. Conklin: Did we discuss Eric, at all, the park land dedication, when is that occurring? Phase I, Phase II, Final Plat? Subdivision Committee 11) November 15, 2001 Page 49 Schuldt: Humbard: Schuldt: Conklin: Humbard: Conklin: Humbard: Conklin: Humbard: Conklin: Humbard: Conklin: Ward: We have not had that discussion. I can tell you that Parks Board recommended approximately 3.9 acres would be required. They are going to give more than that. I want it on record that you guys make sure that you submit a letter wanting to bank the rest of the land dedication. As far as when, that has not been determined. Are you talking about the 1.67 acres? Yes Sir. Probably,just to advise you, when the final plat comes through for Phase I, we'll be asking for the park land at that time. For the park land Phase I? For the whole thing. I don't think we want to take it piece meal. Then you can ask for it to be banked in case you don't do any additional development but we probably don't want parts of a park for each phase. It is probably all or nothing. Ok. We made it lot 156 like that, if you want a different configuration on lot 156, we can work with that. Just figure our what 3.9 acres was and drew a line. Wherever that needs to go. Ok, we haven't discussed that at all. We don't get eight months down the road or a year down the road and we're arguing over.. . At Technical Plat she told me to show that as 156 and I didn't have any instructions on how to make it, to configure it. Ok, we're just trying to think it through and make sure we can get our park land when Phase I comes through. Just keep in mind that you have one year to begin construction on the subdivision or else your preliminary plat is void. Ok. That is all I have. Eric, how soon, can you tell us again what you expect? • • Subdivision Committee November 15, 2001 Page 50 Schuldt: As soon as it is staked we can go out there and look at it and it won't take long at all. If you could also mark, I want to make sure that we get our pedestrian easements, can you mark that for us when you are out there? Conklin: Is that shown already between 113 and 114? Schuldt: That is correct. There is an old road bend that goes down into this creek area, what we had discussed was making sure that that easement goes along that road bend so it goes into the park land. Humbard: I think we are so far up the bank that you're going to have a flat spot before you ever get to it so if you have to walk left to right to get to it, it is not going to be a big deal. Schuldt: If you can mark it, we'll look at it. The other question, what else was it? Ward: The main thing wasjust making sure that, I don't want this to come to the full Planning Commission if you are still not knowing exactly if this is going to work exactly or that your staffhasn't been out there. How is that going to be marked out there? Will it be real easy or hard? Humbard: It will be easy enough. It is brush hogged and we have already marked it once. Schuldt: They marked it once and then we shifted the whole development to the south so that is what we're asking is to mark where it now stands. Bunch: What about the resolution of the one that is in the computer? Humbard: Let's just kind of go back to the beginning on this. We met with the Parks Commission out there and we basically showed them the property that we wanted them to consider and they accepted it. The trails people and Eric have come back and requested additional land off of the development for the trail. We have accommodated them. We have accommodated them about to the extent that we can without a major redesign on this project. We've tightened everything to the south and to the east and we've moved and moved and moved. There is no more move in this project without basically changing the design totally on it. I just want everybody to know tat we've accommodated them about as far as we can accommodate you without a major redesign on this project. It wasn't our intent at the beginning to even accommodate that, but we could so we did. Subdivision Committee November 15, 2001 Page 51 Schuldt: I would like to speak also because our perspective is a little different. There was some discussion about the trail originally being along the creek so we left it in our motion to make sure that we had the opportunity to work with the developer in case we needed some additional land on the top. Humbard: There was nothing ever said about land on the top Eric, and I want to put that out there now. We were there, we showed them what we wanted to give them and we've accommodate you to the point that I think that we both got what we wanted. Schuldt: I can read the Park Board motion if you would like. At the bottom part of that motion it says "The Parks staff and developer will be required to work together on determining the exact locations and total acres of the parks property including the accessibility to the park" and that is kind of what we're doing here. Humbard: We were talking about accessibility to this park up here. We never talked about a trail along the back of those lots. The accessibility was this easement that we're talking about lot 13. Schuldt: The reason we had that put in the motion is because a concern in this west portion of this trail that it was there. There was a possibility at an earlier time that we would have to get some additional land up there because we were concemed about that bluff. That is why that was in the motion. I think we're close. Humbard: I understand. I'm just letting everybody know that if we start trying to move that line further south, we're going to be in some real problems. Schuldt: Let me ask a question. When you met with Tim and we were able to redesign a little bit and move this land, move development to the south. There was 24'? Humbard: Potentially there was 24'. Schuldt: I guess that is my question, why we're asking, did we get that 24' on this edge? Humbard: Well, you know, we didn't really ever talk about getting 24' on lots 103 and 104. We talked about shortening those lots considerably and that is what we did. We said we would shorten those the most we could and still have a buildable lot there. One other thing that Len wants to talk about is over here on Hartford Street. I believe you already have a street in town named Hartford and that was put on there since the Last one so we will have to redo that. The possibility of not constructing that street at this point or coming up • Subdivision Committee November 15, 2001 Page 52 for some kind of agreement for future construction if that property ever develops to the east Our preliminary plat for Phase III did not show that street and one of the comments was to add that back in there which we did. We feel like ifyou are going to bring the trail up in that way Eric, that might be an excellent trail access in addition to the easement between lots 113 and 114. If we could put that off to some point, or not do it at all or make it a bond or some situation that we would not build Hartford Street at this time until it is needed, we could go ahead and dedicate the right of way and do whatever needs to be there. Conklin: It is City policy that we no longer are not constructing those because we did that in Boardwalk and Park Place and guess what...we have two subdivisions that don't connect together today. The property owner has specifically requested that they have public street access. I asked them if they would like it built now, not that one person is telling the city what to do, our policy has always been to require the stub outs to be there. Yes, they would like the street stub out and as a policy, ifyou look at what Bridgeport had to do with their stub outs, if this one wasn't constructed and built up to the property line, we would be discussing how to get that built and up to the property line in order for this subdivision to be built. There is opportunity for this land to develop. It is not a large piece but it is going to be important that the street is there. Once again, a bluff, cliff type elevation right here can be very difficult to meet our street standards if you are coming directly off of Mount Comfort Road to get up that hill. Mr. Boyton had the stub out over in Bridgeport up to his property to the north. Mr. Hendrix only had a 20' access easement, which would not meet our standards for a subdivision. I can see it now. That land never developed up there. If any additional traffic came through that easement between the two houses people built, the neighborhood would go crazy. It is going to be important to get Hartford Street built to the property line. I was just going to make one more point on the park land issue. You as a Commission has to accept all park land dedication and it is up to you to choose which land with working with the Parks Board which is suitable for park land development. Lynn Williamson and Philip Humbard, you guys have worked with us really well. It hasn't been a problem trying to fix it so I don't want the impression that we're arguing because we've been out there and we've been working on that. The bottom line is that we don't want land that is not going to be suitable for a trail and that is what Eric is trying to do. That is why the Parks Board made that motion. We just don't want land that you can't have access to and so that is what we're working on. Humbard: One thing about Hartford, is there any way that we can restrict that from being a driveway until that property is developed? If this guy, now we build it and he has got a trailer house and a couple of other buildings out there and now he decides to use that as a driveway, is that allowed for him to do that? • • • Subdivision Committee November 15, 2001 Page 53 Conklin: He is going to use it as an access to his property. He is a brand new Fayetteville citizen, he was annexed injust a week ago. He'll have access to that street and I think his son and daughter live out there to. Humbard: Is he going to have to pave his drive up to his house? Conklin: No, we don't have standards for that. Humbard: If it is a muddy mess and he tracks stuff in there all the time. Are there any requirements that he adhere to any standards? Ward: Conklin: Ward: Shreve: Ward: Hesse: Ward: Hesse: Ward: I don't think so. No. Sidewalks, Keith, any concerns? Everything on the plat looks good. Fantastic. Ok, Kim? They are meeting all tree requirements. Fantastic. Is there any more say so about the unique tree out there that is in the park area? No. We requested that they move the utility easements back and they have done that. Ron, Engineering? Petrie: If they build Hartford Street they need to extend an 8" water line along that street. Also, if the street is built, in between Shamone to that, that part we need to make it a local street. From there it can go to a residential street. • Humbard: What was that? Petrie: That small piece in between the two roads.. . Conklin: This is what he is talking about because there could be more traffic between this piece right here. • Subdivision Committee November 15, 2001 Page 54 Petrie: This needs to be 28' right here. Humbard: What does Hartford have to be? We show it as a 24' street with a 42' right of way. Conklin: I saw that. Petrie: I think I'm ok with that because this would be a loop. Conklin: I'm thinking the same thing Ron. Humbard: We do have 50' right of way there. Petrie: We'll need a local because we're feeding to the roads really. Humbard: Kind of like what we did over here with the cul de sac? Petrie: Right. The only other comment that I have is that I do need a revised grading plan showing some of the comments that I had at Technical Plat Review and showing some of the revisions we've had so far. Humbard: We feel like those two trash filled draws, we're going to have to make trash of them first. Petrie: Just get that before Planning Commission. Ward: Also, this is a preliminary plat, probably on a final plat where Hartford is, you show it on the plat but it is not shown on the map. That is not a big deal right now. Any other Engineering concerns? Petrie: No Sir. Ward: At this time I will open it to the public. Seeing none, I'll close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission and to the applicant. Bunch: Just a question on what precipitated condition one. That is apparently a discrepancy in the computers. How does that get resolved? If we go out and stake it on the site and walk it, you're still relying upon the computerized images for the backup so what is the problem there? Is it somebody's disk or the city system? • Schuldt: 1 don't know. I just know that when Steve Hatfield gets the two images they don't line up. • O Subdivision Committee November 15, 2001 Page 55 Conklin: Maybe you can get John Goddard to go out there and GPS the land. Schuldt: We did GPS the original trail but when we shoot an image on the computer something is off. We initially marked the trail by going out there and walking it and flagging it so he can tell on site if the corridors that are shown here are the staked corridors. Ward: Ok. Williamson: My name is Lynn Williamson and I represent Cross Creek, LLC, the developer. I, from the beginning, expressed my opposition, not to get to the point that we've gotten to. It has been a good process and we want to make this work for Steve who is now in charge of the trails system. I would like to say that Steve came on and got into this process after we already had the initial design done. The trail being moved from down below to up above was because you hired a new trails man. We have worked with him and we know that he has goals and we want to help him meet his goals. That is why the trail left the bottom of this property and moved up on the hill. I have said all along that when I entered into the contract to purchase this 14.54 acres or whatever it was and then allocate the portion for the parks the yield of what is left here is very critical on this piece of property. It is on a bluff and our ability to make this property to work, it was very important that we maximize the effect ofthese lots along the bluff. We have to play catch up with those sites when you decided, and we've expressed it more times than here, when you move the trail system up on top and wanted it to accommodate the top, I expressed at that time, and I'll express again. The thought of having the trail system behind these people's back yards. I don't like that. I don't like it as well as what you had before as far as getting the trail back down away from those back yards. If I lived in this house, I wouldn't want somebody walking behind my house. That is a difference in philosophy and I accept that and we've agreed to not agree on that. Phil has gone ahead, we've talked about the reduction of the right of ways and to move this and to compress this back down to the south and I think that where we are now, I think it is reasonable to say that we've got to that point. I would like to make a point about this Hartford Street. I've harped on Hartford Street here from day one because of the way the draw comes up here. The fact that they have these homes over here, one is new and one is existing, but there are two homes over here. I've said all along, and I know that he's annexed in now and he wasn't before. It seems to me that when you think about the way this lays back here and the way this will eventually go on around here, with those houses there, it seems to me that where Hartford Street is a natural way to access, even if it is a driveway through there. It could be a driveway/access to the trail system that you are now going to try to move up on this ridge. Rather than have that as a street going through there, it seems to me that with the difficulty of this draw here and the fact that those houses would have to be sold off or moved off and this would be • Subdivision Committee November 15, 2001 Page 56 Conklin: Williamson: Ward: Williamson: 1110 Ward: Williamson: • Humbard: Williamson: Conklin: Schuldt: Williamson: developed in the future. It seems to me that rather than build a street through there, make this an access to your trail, double. Make a driveway to his house but also make it be your trail head. It seems logical to me to go over one lot here and carve out a place to build a street or a path to access people to a walking trail when you have this Hartford Street super highway there. It is around here. It seems to me like, even if we clip the back, here I am talking about stuff that the engineer starts cringing on, but even if you clip the tail off the back of lot 116, it seems like avery natural way to access the trail system to me. I am not talking about.. We haven't discussed this have we? I've looked at this and looked at this on site and I'm just convinced that there is a better way to do your trail system access than to go between these two lots here. Are you saying that we would take away the access between 113 and 114? Right. Take that out and put a trail access next to Hartford? Leave Hartford Street as a right of way but use it to access over to your trail head and also access to this man's driveway. They are not going to let you do away with Hartford. I didn't say do away with it, I said leave the right of way there. There you go, so you actually clip the comer for your trail That is something that probably parks needs to look at. I would be happy to take that to Steve. I would rather do the guy's driveway from here, do a driveway that is an asphalt driveway with an offshoot to the trail head and itjust seems like it is going to be much more pleasing to these people and it is going to accommodate the whole need out there. Conklin: Len, no one's arguing with you. This is the first we've heard of it. • Subdivision Committee November 15, 2001 Page 57 Williamson: Ward: Conklin: Bunch: Conklin: I argued about this street, if you remember, back when we had the street going straight across here. I looked at that and thought that is a street going into a home. Let's try to work this out between Parks and Tim and come to the full Planning Commission, especially if this trails thing turns out to be fine also then we can go ahead and move it right on the bank and with some kind of recommendation or idea of what our City Planner thinks along with Parks and Recreations. We look to them to give us at least guidelines of what we're going to agree to or not agree to. We're not experts at trails and so on, so we're expecting our trails and parks people to take care of us in that department. You heard my recommendation on the street. It needs to be built to the property line. I'm not backing off on that and negotiating that. Dust find it interesting that Mr. Hendrix moved out there thirty years ago, lives in the country and he is surrounded by two subdivisions now that he can access his property. I was going to add that if that lot has existed and there was no access with what is it? Bridgeport and this. How in the world did he get to that piece of property? He is going offa hill of Mount Comfort. That makes it very difficult to develop. We don't see this developer going down this bluff. He didn't have direct access down here, but I still think he probably wouldn't be doing that because it would be very difficult to meet our street standards and expensive. That is what mr. Hendrix is facing. I think you know, there are two homes that are out there. Everything that has happened out here, in the future, it is a bluff, beautiful views, a very desirable place to have a house. I could see more houses with a loop street right here for Mr. Hendrix. That is why I'm so adamant about putting that in. Williamson: We don't have a problem with potentially incorporating the trail head here. I just have to get that back to Steve. Well, that would just make lots 113 and 114 lots a little more desirable. Mr. Hendrix does have access out through Bridgeport though right? Yes, a 20' easement. It is a private easement, it is not a public right of way. He'll have two accesses. He will have his choice. He can go through Bridgeport or he can come out of us. Humbard: Williamson: Conklin: Williamson: • • • Subdivision Committee November 15, 2001 Page 58 Conklin: Yes, for him. I can see it now, if he developed his land, ten more houses there. The people that build houses on each side of that 20' easement, they are probably going to sue and say you can't increase traffic down the sides of their houses. Mr. Boyton, who lives further to the east, has the actual stub out paved to the property line. Williamson: Why wouldn't it be more reasonable, in light of the fact that there are two houses setting there, he already has access out, you're wanting to move my project south to get a better system here. Why is it unreasonable for me to say let's use this as his driveway and not build the street at this time and then if that develops, you've got the right of way and then you build it at that time. Conklin: Well, just like you're not paying for Creek Wood Hills Development stub out, you didn't pay for any of this street, Newbridge Road. Williamson: No. Conklin: Then you're using it. You wouldn't be able to develop, you would be out of business right now probably because you wouldn't have access to the subdivision. Williamson: If I'm giving you the right of way, you've got the access. It is there. Conklin: The issue is who pays for it. Do you want to pay for Bridgeport Subdivisions stub out if it wasn't built? Humbard: We would have. Conklin: That is what you're asking. Williamson: I have paid to go to that other place. Ward: I think that we can move this on. Motion: Bunch: I'll move that we forward PPL 01-7.00 to the frill Planning Commission with the comments that have been made at this meeting. Hoover: I'll second. Ward: I'll concur. Thank you. Meeting adjourned: 11:05 a.m.