Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-01-17 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, January 17, 2002 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED LSP02-3.00 & 4.00: Lot Split (Lot 2 CMN Business Park II Phase I, pp 134) Page 3 LSD 02-3.00: Large Scale Development (Party City, pp 134) Page 5 FPL 02-2.00: Final Plat (Crystal Springs Phase II, pp 245) Page 20 PPL 02-3.00: Preliminary Plat (Sage Meadows, pp 398) Page 24 LSP 02-8.00: Lot Split (Wilson, pp 406) Page 29 LSP 02-1.00: Lot Split (Westphal/Cobb, pp 557) Page 34 LSD 02-2.00: Large Scale Development (Superior Federal Bank, pp 557) Page 34 ACTION TAKEN Forwarded Forwarded Approved Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded LSP 02-6.00 Lot Split (Farrell, pp 283 & 322) Forwarded Page 50 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Don Bunch Lee Ward Don Marr Sharon Hoover Subdivision Committee January 17, 2002 Page 2 STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Sara Edwards Ron Petrie Keith Shreve Kim Hesse Kim Rogers Tim Conklin Trevor Bowman Paul Libertini Subdivision Committee January 17, 2002 Page 3 LSP02-3.00 & 4.00: Lot Split (Lot 2 CMN Business Park II Phase I, pp 134) was submitted by Chris Rogers of CEI Engineering Associates, Inc. on behalf of Hydco, Inc. for property located at the northwest corner of Steele Blvd. and Joyce Blvd. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 5.57 acres. The request is to split into three lots of 3.7703 acres, 0.8131 acres, and 0.9878 acres. Ward: Good morning. Welcome to the Subdivision Committee meeting of the Planning Commission and today is Thursday, January 17, 2002. It looks like we have eight items on our agenda for this morning. We will start off with LSP 03 & 4.00 for CMN Business Park II, Phase I submitted by Chris Rogers of CEI Engineering Associates, Inc. on behalf ofHydco, Inc. for property located at the northwest corner of Steele Blvd. and Joyce Blvd. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 5.57 acres. The request is to split into three lots of 3.7703 acres, 0.8131 acres, and 0.9878 acres. Tim, are you going to handle this one? Conklin: Sure. The first item is the lot split for lots 2. These lots do meet our minimum zoning requirements. An additional right of way will be dedicated along Joyce Blvd. in order to comply with the Master Street Plan and that is 55' from centerline. We are recommending that this lot split be forwarded to the full Planning Commission. Conditions to address include a note shall be added to the plat which states no curb cuts shall be allowed for lot 2A or lot 2B. The plat shall be revised to show driveways for the large scale development 02-3.00, Party City as access easements for lot 2A and 2B. What they are proposing is to bring in access onto lot 2 and when we look at the large scale development you will see how access will be provided to those two out parcels. Number two is a sanitary sewer shall be extended to lot 2A prior to filing the lot split. Number three is a note shall be added to the plat which states that development on this property must conform to a unified development theme. The first parcel to develop will set the standard and subsequent development will be required to match. That is based on our commercial design standards. Those are the conditions that we need to address today. The rest of the conditions are standard conditions of approval. Ward: Ok, thanks Tim. Conklin: Thank you. Ward: Do you have a presentation? Rogers: No Sir. Ward: Keith on sidewalks? Subdivision Committee January 17, 2002 Page 4 Shreve: There is an existing sidewalk along Steele and Joyce that meet requirements. Ward: Ok, Ron on engineering? Petrie: On the final plan we get stamped to record, we would like the sewer extension to be shown on the lot split itself. Also, if we could get some more description on these easements. They are not labeled, the utility and I think there are some private drainage easements. That and also some more description for right of way. Please call out numbers and specifically say that is the right of way. That is all. Ward: Motion: At this time is there anyone from the public that would like to make a comment on this item? Seeing none I will bring it back to the Committee. I guess on the next issue we will discuss most of the things that has to do with the large scale development so does anyone have a question or a motion? Bunch: I move that we forward LSP 02-3.00 and LSP 02-4.00, lot splits, to the full Planning Commission. Ward: Ok, do I have a second? Marr: I'll second. Ward: I'll concur. Thanks. Rogers: Thank you. Subdivision Committee January 17, 2002 Page 5 LSD 02-3.00: Large Scale Development (Party City, pp 134) was submitted by Chris Rogers of CEI Engineering Associates, Inc. on behalf of Hydco, Inc. for property located at the northwest corner of Steele Blvd. and Joyce Blvd. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 5.57 acres with a 33,250 sq.ft. retail space proposed. Ward: The second item on the agenda this morning is LSD 02-3.00 for Party City submitted by Chris Rogers of CEI Engineering Associates, Inc. on behalf of Hydco, Inc. for property located at the northwest corner of Steele Blvd. and Joyce Blvd. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 5.57 acres with a 33,250 sq.ft. retail space proposed. Tim, are you going to take care of this one? Conklin: Yes. This is a proposal for Party City to be located in a 10,500 sq.ft. shopping center. The remaining 22,750 sq.ft. will be leaseable space. There are two out lots which will be developed independently of this proposal and those are on the lot split we just looked at, up front, lots 2A and 2B. These buildings on these out lots will have like materials to conform with the unified development theme required on the site. As part of the current proposal 148 parking spaces are being proposed. Recommendation is to forward this to the full Planning Commission. Conditions to address are parking lot lighting shall utilize sodium light fixtures that are energy equivalent and shall not exceed 35' in height. Number two, Planning Commission determination of compliance with commercial design standards including signage. Staff is recommending the following changes to the building elevations as submitted. What I have attempted to present to you this morning is I've been working with Mr. Barry Hyde who is sitting next to me on trying to bring the project into compliance with our commercial design standards out at CMN Business Park II. What you see up on the top if you turn around, left hand side, the top board is the first elevations that were submitted to the City of Fayetteville. Under that on the left side are the second generation elevations that were submitted. We did go out there and take a look at other shopping centers in the area around the Northwest Arkansas Mall. I did have some concern with regard to having the building be more articulated. Also, I pretty much can walk you through these ideas. I am not an architect, I'm just trying to replicate what was presented to me and bring something closer and make some recommendations. Of course their architect can redesign their building and try to get it closer to compliance with what you can approve. Taking the arched canopy on the front of the building and replicating that on both ends, you should know that the Party City building extends about 25' out into the parking lot. That is not a flat wall that you are looking at. We did have some concern on the east elevation that is facing Steele Blvd. replicating the canopy that is on the front of the building on that side and possibly adding a window. Also, if you look at the columns on the front of the building they have some architectural design elements added, the little light Subdivision Committee January 17, 2002 Page 6 fixtures and different color bricks. I would recommend that that be included on the east and west elevations. On the north elevation I would encourage each of you and the entire Commission to go out here and look at this site. The site has already been graded as part of CMN. The building is going to sit down 12' to 13' below grade. The issue is how much of the building are you going to be able to see coming south down the hill from the mall and Steele Blvd. I just drew in replicates. Again, the columns we've done on other projects on the backs of these buildings to try and break them up into how much you can see. I am sure that there will be some discussion of how much you can see and how much work needs to happen on that north elevation. Number two is A) The arch features shall be added to both ends of the south facade. That is a recommendation trying to create some type of design theme to tie the building together. B) The canopy that is present along the front shall be extended to the entire length of the east facade. Once again, we have an east elevation facing the street. We are trying to make that look like a front. All I've done is take what their architect has done on what they consider the front facing Joyce and thrown that on the east. A window shall be added to the east facade. Columns shall be continued around the north facade. A light fixture feature shall be added to the columns on the south. Canopies shall be added above the doorways. Doors on the south facade shall be painted to match the drivit on that facade. The periphet on the rear of the building shall be constructed in order to screen all roof mounted utility equipment. A periphet shall be the minimum height of the tallest equipment on the roof. I think it is going to be difficult to screen the equipment even with that requirement but I think that is probably as far as we can go because you are going to be up a hillside I typically don't go into this much detail but I am very concerned about communicating what I believe is something that the Commission will approve. I don't want to bring the Planning Commission a project that is going to be delayed or tabled. I would like to work out all of these issues this morning, or at least attempt to. I would like to have a thorough discussion of what you believe meets our commercial design standards so that the applicant and his project can go forward. I am not asking you to design it as architects. All I've done here is take what their architect has drawn and replicated it on other facades. There may be other architectural solutions to our ordinance. Number three, the design of this building must be reviewed and approved by the architectural review committee and determined to comply with restrictive covenants. We did take a look at the restrictive covenants and several issues we have discovered with regard to the building. We typically don't enforce these restrictive covenants but we do want to make sure that the sellers of CMN are informing their buyers of what these covenants are and making sure that they are comfortable with their projects. This hasn't gone to the development review committee. We have talked about this and thought that it would be better to work through our ordinance prior to getting CMN to approve it. We have highlighted the restrictive covenants in certain areas. On page 2, Section C, 1A, 80% of the side exterior walls and the buildings must be Subdivision Committee January 17, 2002 Page 7 brick, non -reflective glass, decorative concrete or decorative concrete block, split face block or masonry or stone. I am just pointing this out once again, to the applicant what the covenants in CMN state. 80% of the rear walls which do not face the street may be decorative concrete or decorative concrete block. Split face block or masonry as an alternative to brick or glass. That back wall is mostly E.F.I.S. Under 2A, screening of roof mounted and utility equipment shall be incorporated with structure utilizing materials compatible with supporting building and shall meet the minimum standards required by the City of Fayetteville ordinances. Once again, most likely they are probably complying with that but just to make everybody aware in this situation it is going to be somewhat difficult to do that. Those were pretty much the basic restrictive covenants. I just wanted to bring that to your attention. Number four, all trees removed in the public right of way shall replace trees of similar size and quality. The rest are standard conditions of approval. I would say probably the biggest issue today. That is why I encouraged Bob Estes, who is our chairman of the Commission, to stay with us today too and discuss commercial design standards. I want to make sure that at Planning Commission we have a project that can be approved. That is my presentation. Thank you. Ward: Thank you. Is there anything from the applicant? Rogers: Not from myself but Mr. Hyde may have some response. Hyde: Are you asking for a response to each of these items? Ward: Yes, give us your name for the record. Hyde: I am Barry Hyde. Most of the comments that the Planner is making are not at issue. It is kind of refining some details on the project. The things that we are probably going to have to do some work on that we are not readily agreeable to is adding the arches on the end of the building. We have considered it and discussed it. Architecturally, aesthetically, we think that is a bad idea. Our architect firm thinks it is not going to be pleasing. Ward: Hyde: Ward: You do know why we want it on there. It is, especially the east elevation, is on a major road and it is like a front of a building. Those arches aren't on the east side of the building Sir. t would like to talk about these things one at a time. Ok. Subdivision Committee January 17, 2002 Page 8 Hyde: We are aware of trying to avoid box like structures. Generally, what we have tried to address in that is trying to avoid long, straight periphets and that type of thing. There is not a straight line on this building over 50 feet long when you look at that elevation. There is no particular line that is longer than that. We think we have got pretty good breaks. I will revisit with the architect to see where we have created a shorter pop-up on the two ends where the Planner was proposing duplicating that center arch. The architect had proposed a square pop-up design banner. We will be glad to go back and revisit with him and see if maybe that feature was enlarged a little bit, if that kind of solves some of this problem. Let me try to go in order. The east facade that you are talking about that faces Joyce, the recommendations and suggestions there, I don't anticipate to be a problem. Although, I do anticipate if we did take that arch or anything and really broom that periphet on the east corner or the east end of the south elevation we are going to add a new problem because now when you come down Joyce you are going to be looking at the top of this 12'or 15' periphet. You are going to be looking into the back of it unless we in turn take the periphet on the side of the east and raise it to nearly the same or the same height and we are just increasing that side elevation. We've got a little catch 22 there. Right now we are trying to do proportionally. There is also a lot of landscaping going on in this project. Joyce as you approach from the north towards the south, which is that east elevation that we are discussing, I'm sorry that is Steele, excuse me. That street falls, the elevation falls where that back corner of the property there is an elevation or grading difference of 8' or 9' I think, something like that, maybe 6' somewhere in that range. Rogers: It is even higher as you go up. As you come from the mall and down Steele you will be coming down on the building. Hyde: I think we have a grouping of some trees up in that corner that is already screening that side of the building. The window on the east facade, the problem with that is when we put this together, most likely that very back end of that first lease space will probably be stock area. I imagine that we could introduce some kind of a foe window or something that would match up to those first two windows, kind of a fake window so to speak. Ward: Would we allow a sign there Tim? Conklin: Yes, I think we could. Ward: Maybe we could add a sign there, that sometimes helps to break it up. Conklin: We have those fake windows over by Goody's, Cato, across from Old Navy. If you notice, both of those are facing Mall Ave. One, the Old Navy part, those are real Subdivision Committee January 17, 2002 Page 9 windows. The other side are not real windows but we've done that in the past too to break it up. Hyde: We'll look at that. We are going to try to look at both ways and maybe adding an opportunity for signage as well as maybe introducing the same pattern of windows or another window there. Ward: Would there be a chance of that being a drive by window or something? Hyde: It is designed to be a drive thru window. Actually, it is the window furthest south that is designed to be a drive up window. Actually, again along that east facing, there is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 trees planted about 15 feet off of that side of the building. That side of the building is only 70' long. It is pretty substantially screened also. Ward: Ok. Hyde: Columns extended around the north facade, which is really the alley side or backside of the building. We will have to study that a little bit I think and come back and give you an opinion. That is one that we have just discussed this morning. That is the first time that this has come up. Conklin: Let me share with you why that has come up. We went out there and I tried to evaluate what you are going to see. That is why I encourage each of you to go out there too. It is difficult for me to understand how this is all going to develop. I talked with Milholland Engineering the other day and asked if these lots were pretty much set at grade. His answer was yes. This one is set at grade. There is probably not going to be too much grading. I guess potentially, and I know we're looking from the street, but potentially you could have a parking lot up here looking down when this develops. I don't know how this is going to develop up here. I guess what I'm worried about is just having a blank wall up here if you have a road come in or do something up on this lot. Since we don't know what is going to happen up here it is somewhat difficult. I have also talked about getting one of our bucket trucks to go out there and extend its bucket up and see what you can see and take some photographs. I possibly can do that also to see what you can and can't see out there. I think it is going to depend on how this develops. If you put a building right here it is probably not a big deal. Ward: That is one thing. We will mention to Mel that we will want quite a bit of landscaping there along that line when that is developed to the north. Subdivision Committee January 17, 2002 Page 10 Conklin: I'm not sure. Their property line is down towards the bottom of the cut. This developer could be up here; it is difficult. It is a difficult issue, this back, north elevation. Hyde: There is about a 14' elevation change back here, nearly a 14' bluff. Conklin- How tall is the building going to be? Hyde: I knew you were going to ask me that. The back side I want to say is 22', something like that. One of the things that we are trying to balance in developing one of these projects is first of all it has got to work economically. Secondly, we want to fit well in the community, be a project that we can be proud of. You can certainly understand why we would look at on the backside of the building, reluctantly to add 20 brick columns to the backside of it and decorative lighting and prefinished steel canopies on service entry doors. Again, I think maybe we could take that problem back to the architect and allow him the opportunity to maybe create some graphics or some changes in textures. I would like to give him the opportunity to do something back there at least on that upper half of the building. That is what it looks like may show. Ward: Right. Well, what will happen is that I don't want this to go to Planning Commission, there are four of us today out of nine. All of the sudden it gets voted down because that particular north elevation is not going to pass. Hyde: I wouldn't want that to happen either. Ward: Hyde: Ward: Hyde: There are several on the Commission that are very adamant about how they want that thing to look out there. We want the project to go through as quick as possible and as speedy as we can without being held up at Planning Commission. That is my same goal. Ok. Do you have any other questions? Periphets on the rear of the building do effectively screen the equipment. We feel like we have addressed that well. Ward: What about the tree removal? Do you have any problems with that or questions on that? Hyde: The trees, that may be reviewed, I think we're unsure at this time. I am not sure if it has been figured out. They are only by our three curb cuts. It would be those small Subdivision Committee January 17, 2002 Page 11 Ward: Petrie: 11/2" or 2" caliper trees that are out there now. We don't have any objection to that. We proposed 40 trees on this project in compliance with screening. Again, we want to have an attractive center that fits well in the area. Ok, let me get some comments from staff now. Ron with Engineering. There are a couple of conditions that we need to add into this. They are some of the same things that we discussed with the Olive Garden such as the requirement on the final plat. I can add this later. It says "Each individual tract builder shall employ an environmental specialist to insure the spirit and letter of the 404 permit from the Corp. of Engineers will be complied with in the development of the lot." I know Chris knows that. They are working on that but I need to see that as a condition. Ward: That needs to be on the final plat? Petrie: It just needs to be a condition. Ward: Ok. Petrie: I need to see this information before we can issue the grading permit. Ward: Ok. Petrie: Also, is the implementation of what we call best management practice. To comply with that there are fairly inexpensive items that can be used, inserts that you can install into your drop ins to catch trash, stuff like that. We discussed that with Chris. I don't think there is a problem with those items. I have a question. Will there be a fire sprinkler system? Hyde: No, this is an unsprinkled building. Rogers: Yeah, that is why we have had the change in the waterline since you had last seen it. Petrie: Ok, I was just making sure. That is all that I have. Ward: Alright, Keith with Sidewalks? Shreve: Yes, the same comments. There are existing sidewalks along Steele and Joyce that meet requirements and they are providing bicycle racks per our ordinance. Ward: Ok, how many bicycle racks? Subdivision Committee January 17, 2002 Page 12 Shreve: Six. Ward: Ok. Kim with Landscape? Hesse: Yes, the trees on the right of way, I went out there a couple of days ago to make sure that they were worth saving or moving and actually they are in pretty good health. They are about 3" to 4" caliper. They are good ones. Rogers: So you want a like replacement? Hesse: Ward: A like replacement, we'll want to move those so that they are not impeding the vision of the drive. Just a suggestion, I don't know because there is not a whole lot of space, but to kind of screen the back of that building. You might, if you crowd the underground telephone close to the access rails, you would have room for a row of loblolly pines if you went with a fast growing loblolly pine and started out with a fairly good tree then it wouldn't take long to cover that from the street coming down Steele. Obviously, you wouldn't want to hide the part of the buildings that you want to see but you could maybe use that for some of the cover I think that of the trees that are on the east side, that they are going to get up to the top of the building. We've got some small maples and some medium size trees that are not going to hide that top of the building, those specific species won't but if we were to go with something fairly inexpensive, like the loblolly pines, that might help. They meet the requirements though. Ok, thanks Kim. Is there anyone from the public that would like to make a public comment on this particular item? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it to the panel. Edwards: I was just wondering, there is a list of permissible building materials in the covenants and I wondered if these were comparable to those? They are not the same name but they could be a different manufacturer. Hyde: I think so. I have talked to Brian Shaw with the developer's office specifically about our texture review, materials. Trying to understand the intents on the things. There are some areas of the covenants that are not easily read, for me anyway. We have showed them the preliminary, they haven't seen the revised plan. They saw the preliminary plan, we talked about where we were headed and what we were doing on the project. They have seen the actual material samples on the project. We think that we're in compliance and preparing the project in such a way that they are going to approve it. Subdivision Committee January 17, 2002 Page 13 Conklin: I have one more question. I asked this at plat review. All of the improvements shown on the site plan are going to be installed as a part of this approval on lots 2A and 2B? Yes or no? That is a question. Hyde: You mean as far as curb, gutter or concrete? Conklin: What we're looking at on lots 2A and 2B, are all of those improvements going to be installed as a part of this large scale development? Rogers: I know that we talked before about the necessity of the curb and gutter along the top of the out parcels and we actually do need to have that as far as our drainage scheme. Otherwise, that water would be just running off towards Joyce, that is why we ended up having to put it in. Yes, we need to put that in. Conklin: Ok, and the proposed access points to lots 2A and 2B that are shown on those lots and within that access easement, those are going to be constructed at this time? Rogers: Yes. Conklin: So you will have improvements on lots 2A and 2B that will be constructed? Rogers: Yes, just to the point that we are showing here. Just the driveway. Conklin- Do you foresee transferring ownership of 2A and 2B prior to those improvements being constructed? I am just trying to help Ron out here for ownership and grading permits. Rogers: That is going to kind of make things, since we have to have the sewer in before we can file the lot split, we can't transfer ownership until we have the lot split done and either we will have to have that in or we would have to request it to be bonded. That is going to complicate things. I know that we have to get sanitary sewer over to 2A before it can be. Conklin: Ok. I was just curious of what the improvements on these lots are. Hyde: The last time we met we discussed the improvements of the lot I think that is what you are referring to in terms of curb and gutter. Conklin: Yes and access. Subdivision Committee January 17, 2002 Page 14 Hyde: We stated that we would probably try to only do them to the extent that they were necessary for the drainage plan to work properly. After going back and working with Andrew on that, there is really not any opportunity to leave any of that out. Rogers: We tried. Hyde: Our intent is certainly to sale quickly. Conklin: Ok, we can work with you on that. The locations of these curb cuts, bottom line is we are approving those locations at this time because they are constructing those as access to lots 2A and 2B. Ward: Ok. Conklin: At least one point of access I guess. Hyde: One point of access because there is no opportunity for curb cuts into the main roads and we understand that. Conklin: Ok, and you have that in your condition? Access easements again? Edwards: It will be done on the lot split. Conklin- Ok, if you can show those access easements on here. If you are going to allow access to those lots through here too you might want to have an access easement come through here. Rogers: Would it be easier to do that or just show it as a blanket cross access agreement between all parties? Conklin: Whatever you want to do. I just want something on here. Not that this would happen but, lot 2A person comes to my office and guess what? They never gave us the access and there is no agreement or anything and there is an argument about it. Rogers: It might be easier to just say there is a blanket cross access between all the lots. Conklin: Ok. That is all I have. Ward: Is there anyone on the committee that has any questions or motions? Bunch: On the site coverage, it is a little bit unclear on the built and paved and the percentage of coverage. Is that 76% of what will be lot 2C that has coverage? Subdivision Committee January 17, 2002 Page 15 Rogers: Yes Sir. Bunch: Tim, what is the requirement on this on open space? Conklin- Fifteen. Bunch: Ok, so we are over? Ok. Conklin: They did good on that. If you could relabel that so we know what we are looking at. Rogers: It says up here that it is lot 2C, just clarify that? Conklin: Yes. Bunch: On the parking ratio, is that supposed to be a redundancy where you have two lines of the same thing or is there something that was supposed to be there that got inadvertently left out? Rogers: Oh, yes we had some extra information that is a redundancy. Bunch: On the notes on front of the drawing in front of the lease space A and lease space B where it says curb and no curb in vicinity of the southern face, is that going to be a bit of a wall there with the elevations? Is it any slower in the parking lot or do you have the situation where people can drive up to these stores? Rogers: No, there is just a small segment because of the step downs of these buildings. To meet ADA requirements with the ramps is that we would have the ramp come down but there would be a small segment where the curb kind of tapers down and when it meets the ramp and then it starts back up again. Effectively, there is a wheel stop there where people can't drive in if that is what your concern is. Bunch: There is also the ADA access? Rogers: Yes, that was our biggest issue was trying to get this stair stepping effect to work out and still meet the requirements. We will have to put in a bunch of handrails and so forth. Marr: I guess maybe are we going to see another thing come back with different drawings? I can tell you without something on either end of that not only do I think I wouldn't vote for it I don't think half the commission would. Subdivision Committee January 17, 2002 Page 16 Ward: Marr: Well, that is why Tim started off with his ideas and I think the developer knows that this would not pass Planning Commission without those things. Hopefully by the time that it does come to Planning Commission they will have some changes on those other elevations. I don't think we have the right to tell them exactly what to do. I agree with that. I guess, when you ask for motions to move it forward, I certainly wouldn't move it forward under the design without those things. I don't know if we are leaving it up to does it come back here again or is it going to go on and you are going to take a chance that that concern is going to be addressed. Conklin: I tried to articulate what I thought needed to happen because I'm concerned about moving it forward and getting to the Commission and having a project that can't be approved. What I would like to hear from the Subdivision Committee is what each of you think needs to happen on this building to meet our design standards, at least give them some direction. I am confident enough that if you say something needs to happen on both ends and we need columns and additional canopies that it should come back that way. I can make sure it comes back that way and put it on the agenda. Marr: Ward: Actually, I'll give my two cents worth on it. I think that a lot of what Tim presented is more of what I'm thinking about with this building. I think that certainly the north elevation needs a lot of what you talked about. I understand the economics of building a business and at the same time this building is going up in what will be, and is, one of the fastest growing development areas and the next kind of retail center. That is a part of economics that you have to plan on when you start it. I think that the arching on each end has to be done or something. That is, I can't get past the box like with it the way it is. I would consider myself more to the middle or maybe to the left of it but I can tell you that I know three or four Commissioners that I feel confident that would feel the same way. I also have, the other one, the east elevation. Absolutely, I think that has to have the awnings or the window or some type of treatment on that. I think that the developer has already took care of the east and west elevations. The north elevation is, I think, the one that is going to create some concern on how much visibility it is going to have. I know that some of the problems that we have like the split face block materials, which is good stuff to use, is going to be hid in the E.F.I.S., the cheaper looking stuff, is probably going what can be seen. It is kind of a catch 22, too bad that it is not the other way around. Again, those are just some ideas that I had. Maybe some color bands going across there to break it up some. Definitely you need the columns. All we are trying to do here at this meeting is to Subdivision Committee January 17, 2002 Page 17 make sure that you understand what you need to do to get final approval with what we have done in the past. It has to be feasible, I know you can't spend all of your money on the back of the building but it has to look nice. Marr: I think Kim's suggestion too on some trees that would actually go to the height or higher to cover the building with something like that. Hyde: So if we considered pines, fast growing pines, then that would put us in a position that we could back off brick columns and decorative lighting and those features on the back of the building or you would like both is what you are saying? Estes: Mr. Chairman, may I speak for just a moment? Ward: Sure. Estes: What we see in the upper left hand corner is not acceptable. Hyde: That is not what is before you today. Estes: I know, I'm just starting there. What we see in the upper left hand corner, that dog is not going to hunt. Hyde: I understand. Estes: As we move over here to what we see on the right and having listened to the comments and read the proposed conditions that Mr. Conklin, our City Planner, we're getting closer. Some of the things that I've thought about as I have listened to the comments, you said that the architect said that the arch structure over on what would be the southeast corner was not structurally feasible or was not engineering feasible.. . Hyde: Aesthetically, he didn't think that was a good aesthetic solution. Estes: Ok, is that because as you come down the hill you are going to see the back of that? Hyde: That was a secondary item. He didn't want to repeat that feature and in the same size and shapes on the ends as what is in the middle and I'm probably not doing a good enough job of telling you what their comments were. They thought it would be aesthetically to do something to stay with a square shape like where they have popped it up now, maybe look at increasing the size, maybe a little bit deeper or larger cornus on that, that is what they thought aesthetically brought variation to the Subdivision Committee January 17, 2002 Page 18 Estes: building. To simply duplicate the arch, they thought was going to reduce the interest of the building. As you come down the hill, that is an issue, what you are going to see. You do not own the property that is on the lot to the north so there can't, we can't require you to contribute anything to the landscaping of that lot because we can't put conditions precedent on the design and use of that lot as a condition of approval for this large scale development so that becomes an issue. I am concerned about what you would see when you come down the hill. I also share Commissioner Man's concerns regarding commercial design standards. Ward: Ok. Hesse: I was just going to say, I didn't mean to confuse you. The pines, what they would hide would be the top of the building, your AV equipment and stuff like that. It really wouldn't substitute for what you did on materials. For one thing, it would take them a while to get that thick. As you come down that hill, at least you wouldn't see that back of the roof section. Ward: Ok, thanks Kim. Bunch: What about the Norway Spruce that are on the northeast corner? They would screen some of the view of that north facade wouldn't they? Hesse: Eventually. Those are slow growing. Conklin: I think they are about 6'. They went in when they created the street. Those are 1' contours? Rogers: Yes. Ward: I'm in the position that I would like to see it go ahead and go to the full Planning Commission. I just think that with all the comments you've had this morning you kind of have an idea that as it is now it won't approve. We don't want to hold you up week after week trying to design a building. The problem is, you can take nine different people on the Planning Commission and all nine of us will have different ideas of what would be approved. That is a no win situation. I think a lot of things Tim brought out first are a lot of things that I would be very, very interested in personally. Most of those things I think would look great and I think it can be a fantastic project. Are there any other comments? I can either take a motion to table it or we can push it to the full Planning Commission. Subdivision Committee January 17, 2002 Page 19 Motion: Marr: Ward: I guess I can move for it to go on provided that we are not going to be designing at Planning Commission. They are going to come in with a significant improvement along the lines of what we've been seeing and if it is not then I am not comfortable doing that. Sure. That is all we can ask for here. That is what Subdivision Committee is for, to help guide the developer, to kind of give him some ideas. That is his first contact with the Planning Commission is us. Is that in the form of a motion? Marr: Yes, as long as the point is clear. Ward: Do I have a second? Bunch: Just before I give ideas, on item 2 of the conditions, B, this may be a little meticulous. It says that the columns shall be continued around to the north facade, should that to be left out? Was that your comment Tim that they be continued around the north facade rather than to the north facade and then stopping? Conklin: Yes. Bunch: In that case, I will second. Ward: Ok, I will concur. I think you know what you kind of have to work with. If your architect has some better ideas for it then more power to them. All we are trying to do is make sure that the building does meet commercial design standards, does not look like a box like structure. That north line, even though it might not be seen in the future it might not ever be seen depending on the development in there, we have to look at it as it is right now. Thank you very much. Hyde: Thank you. FPL 02-2.00: Final Plat (Crystal Springs phase II, pp 245) was submitted by Mel Milholland of Milholland Company on behalf ofJED Development for property located south of Crystal Drive and east of Holcomb Elementary School. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains 4.67 acres with 15 lots proposed. Ward: The next item on the agenda is FPL 02-2.00 for Crystal Springs, Phase II submitted by Mel Milholland of Milholland & Company on behalf of JD Development for property located south of Crystal Drive and east of Holcomb Elementary School. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains 4.67 acres with 15 lots proposed. Tim, are you handling this one? Subdivision Committee January 17, 2002 Page 20 Conklin: This is an expansion of the Crystal Springs subdivision to the south of Crystal Springs subdivision. The first phase was to the north. There is flood plain located on the east side of the property. The preliminary plat was approved on October 11, 1999. We are recommending approval at this level. The final plat shall not be filed until approval from FEMA has been obtained which changes the location of the hundred year floodplain. If the proposed lots do not meet the requirements of the flood damage prevention code with regard to the area outside the current hundred year floodplain. Once the new information is approved the lots will meet this requirement. What they have done on the lots within the hundred year floodplain, which they are allowed to do, is build those with compacted soil and apply to FEMA to raise the elevations of those lots above the hundred year floodplain elevation and remove those lots out of the hundred year floodplain. 2) Final acceptance of streets must be approved by City Council. That is something that we are going to start doing due to state laws that require acceptance of public streets be done by the City Council. Those are the only two conditions that we have this morning. Ward: Ok, that is easy enough. Edwards: Number five, I wasn't sure on the parks fees but they dedicated land back in 1995 that satisfied their parks requirements. Ward: Ok, no fees. What do we call that? Milholland: Banked, I think they banked quite a bit. Ward: Ok. Milholland: Do they still do that? Ward: Yes. Ron? Petrie: One thing, perhaps on the finished floor elevations you are going to have to mark all of the storm water. We have one benchmark shown fairly well of the site, you have a fire hydrant about midway through the subdivision, can we get another benchmark right in the middle of this so they will have something to lock on? Milholland: No problem. Ward: So you need a second benchmark around the middle? Subdivision Committee January 17, 2002 Page 21 Petrie: Yes. When we do have the acceptance by FEMA if we can get some of this verbiage changed on the plat. Right now it says it was filed with FEMA December, 2001, if we could change that, get an approval, when it was approved and if there is some type of reference number, that information would be helpful. That is all. Milholland: Do you want to make a floodplain note or something else? Petrie: On a couple you have got filed with FEMA, December, 2001. That won't be relevant, we just need when it was approved and the reference number. Edwards: We'll change that when they approve it. Petrie: If we can get that. Conklin: How far out do you think you are on the FEMA approval? Milholland: It was sent in. Jefcoat: It was sent in about 21/2 weeks ago, as soon as we turned this back in. I would say within three weeks. That is the time frame that they gave us. I think we would be lucky to do that. Milholland: What we discussed before was if we ran it through like this and it approved and then we could note that. They have a couple of things that they need to do. Ward: Ok, Keith? Shreve: No comment. Ward: Kim? Hesse: No comment Ward: Parks and Recreation? We understand this has been banked so there are no parks fees. Ok. At this time I will open it up to the public. Is there any public comment on this particular agenda item, Crystal Springs Subdivision? Seeing none, I'll close it to the public and bring it back to the Committee. Is this totally done out there already Mel? Milholland: Yes. Ward: I haven't had a chance to drive out there, but it is ready to go. Ok, do you have any other comments Mel? Subdivision Committee January 17, 2002 Page 22 Milholland: Petrie: Milholland: Ward: Bunch: Edwards: Ward: Motion: Bunch: Ward: Marr: Ward: I was just going to ask Ron. I know that they put in a comment on all plats now that item 7, the department will not guarantee that sewer capacity will be available at time of construction.. . Right. Is that in regard to the capacity of the plant, is that what we're saying? I know we have about 200 acres out there in total and we designed a forced main, a lift station and everything for that 200+ acres and got a letter for it. Other subdivisions are kind of into it but the city assured us that as we developed they would have capacity in that lift station, that is the only thing that we're concerned about. As far as we know, we are going to have capacity for it. Are there any comments or questions? Just a housekeeping comment, do we have to have the lot areas on the final plat? Yes, that is a good idea. He's got a table on it. That satisfies that comment. I will move that we approve FPL 02-2.00, Crystal Springs Phase II at this level. Ok, do I have a second? Second. I'll concur. Thank you Mel. Milholland: Thank you. Subdivision Committee January 17, 2002 Page 23 PPL 02-3.00: Preliminary Plat (Sage Meadows, pp 398) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Mark Foster for property located north of Hwy 16 and east of 51st Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 31 acres with 89 lots proposed. Ward: Item four is a preliminary plat submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Mark Foster for property located north of Hwy. 16 and east of 515` Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 31 acres with 89 lots proposed. This is called Sage Meadows. This is a preliminary plat. Conklin: This is a proposed subdivision. It will have two street connections to Fieldstone Subdivision and one connection to Fairfield Phase III. Phase III is a preliminary plat approved on November 26, 2001. 515` Street is proposed to be approved adjacent to the site. Currently there is 1.3% existing tree canopy on the site. The applicant is proposing to preserve 1.08% of the site with trees and mitigate the remaining through contributing to the tree fund. We are recommending that this be forwarded to the full Planning Commission. Condition one is regarding improvements to 515t Street and I will let Ron Petrie go over those improvements. That is all I have. Ward: Ok, thanks. Would you like to make a statement? You might give us your name. Heneley: Tom Heneley with Jorgensen & Associates. Ward: Ok, I just knew that you weren't Dave. Ron, that is just a gravel road out there right now, 51st Street, it is not paved or anything is it? Petrie: Right. The Planning Commission approved a subdivision just to the north of this. Fairfield Subdivision had the same situation on the street, what was approved is what we recommended. We are recommending the same thing here. What is adjacent to their side of the street we recommend it be widened, pave 14', local street standards. On the west side of the street it is in the county I believe so it is the same situation to the north. We would just recommend that that be widened on the west side to meet the county standards. Ward: Would that be paved? Petrie: It would be paved, it would be 10' with a 4' gravel shoulder and an open ditch. Ward: Ok, are there any other comments? Subdivision Committee January 17, 2002 Page 24 Petrie: Just a few more. We would request that the utility easement along 51st Street be the 25', I don't think you are showing building setback on several of these lots, 6 & 7. Heneley: Ok, is that the rear building setback also because there is no access to these from 51st Street. Edwards: It would be a front setback still. Heneley: Ok, that is no problem showing that. Ward: 25', ok. Petrie: Also, are going to keep those lot numbers? Ward: What is the situation on keeping those lot numbers? Heneley: It makes it easier for us to identify it as lot number whatever of the subdivision that is used and then label them unbuildable rather than, I guess they could be identified with meets and bounds and just labeled greenspace. When we lay these things out normally we are not, at that stage of the game you are not sure of how much area you are going to occupy with detention, or whether detention will even be. Ward: Is this normally the way we do it Tim? Conklin: That is a good question. This detention pond it doesn't look like you are doing that. Heneley: Right, that is because it was not, it was an area that was taken from several lots and the lot lines were basically that way when we laid it out. I can change it. Conklin- Let me think about this a little. We probably need to come up with a policy since every project has detention on it now. I don't understand why you have to have two lots, I can see one lot number but having two.. . Heneley: It is no problem, we can change it. It is not that big of a deal. Conklin- That is fine, it is just kind of strange when you start looking at that. Petrie: Do they get charged parks fees for having that lot numbered? Heneley: Even if they are unbuildable? Edwards: I don't think you should. Subdivision Committee January 17, 2002 Page 25 Conklin: You shouldn't, but you need to understand when you say you have X number of lots; Heneley: That is no problem. We can renumber them and then either do it as a common area or whatever. Ward: Since this is a preliminary plat I think the best thing to do is just renumber them and I think we just need to show that as a common area or whatever it is supposed to be. Heneley: Ok. Ward: Is it a common area? Conklin: Drainage, it is privately maintained by a property owner's association. Ward: How do we normally show that? Conklin- As a common area. That is how I've seen other ones done recently looking at Highland Park and other subdivisions. Petrie: Make sure to get a note on the plat that says who is responsible for the maintenance of the common area and also to direct that in the covenants of the subdivision. Ward: Anything else Ron? Petrie: One thing that was pointed out to me is the greenspace shown on the table there. Heneley: Yes, 150' of greenspace is probably not right. Petrie: That is all. Shreve: Two access ramps will be required. We are not showing any, which is fine, but I wanted to make you aware that there would be two required. Heneley: Ok, it was a graphical thing. It was just a little tight and I didn't want to clutter it up anymore. Shreve: Also, the greenspace, it will be 6' instead of 150'. Ward: Kim, did you have any comments on this? Subdivision Committee January 17, 2002 Page 26 Hesse: No additional comments. There is a possibility, just with discussing with the engineer today of saving some additional trees. That will basically have to be worked out during the final design stages. Ward: There aren't many trees out there right? Hesse: Right. Ward: Parks fees? Edwards: Kim did give me her comments. Right now understandably there are parks fees due for 86 lots at $470 bringing the total to $40,412. Ward: Ok, that's how many lots? Edwards: She has 86. Ward: Does that include those two? Heneley: There were a total of 89. Edwards: It will be $470 per lot depending on how many lots there are. Ward: Do all the lots meet the width? Edwards: Yes, I also had them label the corner one back at the setback. On lot 14 it says 70' at setback so we did check on those. Conklin: They checked them, they didn't just label them, they checked them. Ward: Ok, at this time will open it up for public comment Is there anyone that would like to make a public comment? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Committee. Are there any questions, comments or motions? Subdivision Committee January 17, 2002 Page 27 Motion: Bunch: It looks like a well prepared plan. I will move that we forward PPL 02-3.00 to the full Planning Commission. Ward: Ok, do I have a second? Marr: I'll second. Ward: I'll concur. Thanks. Heneley: Thank you. Subdivision Committee January 17, 2002 Page 28 LSP 02-8.00: Lot Split (Wilson, pp 406) was submitted by William Jenkins of Jenkins Surveying, Inc. on behalf of John Wilson for property located at 1628 and 1630 N. Gregg Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.66 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 0.37 acres and 0.29 acres. Ward: Item number 7 is a lot split submitted by William Jenkins of Bill Jenkins Surveying, Inc. on behalf of John Wilson for property located at 1628 and 1630 N. Gregg Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.66 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of .37 acres and .29 acres. Tim, who is taking care of this one? Conklin: This is a lot split. The applicant is requesting to split the property into two separate tracts. There are two structures on the current piece of property. There would be one structure on each tract after it is split. The applicant is asking for a conditional use for the tandem lot since they've got one house behind another house on Gregg Street. We are asking that this be forwarded to the full Planning Commission. Conditions to address include 1) The use of the two structures on this property will be limited to single family residential. 2) The setbacks shall be revised for tract one to include 20' on all sides of the property. 3) The applicant shall either construct a 30x40 hard surface turn around for a sanitation vehicle or construct a garbage can holder along Gregg Avenue prior to the lot split being filed. Typically, we see the garbage can holder down at the street because it is somewhat expensive to build to a standard to get our trucks up the hill and turn around. 4) They will need to provide a minimum of 25' access easement. Tract two should be revised to include a 20' strip to Gregg Ave. Staff recommends that tract 2 be extended to Gregg Ave. in order to provide legal access for public water and sewer lines along Gregg Ave. What we are talking about there is under state law you can't have private service lines on private property crossing to get to your public lines. If it is feasible, I think it is right? Edwards: We don't know where their service lines are. Conklin: You will need to find your private service lines to that single family home and the idea situation would be to extend this arm coming up on this lot so that this owner would own all the way down the street with the private lines. Wilson: With sewer and water? Conklin: Is that correct Ron? Petrie: Yes. Wilson: Run that by me one more time. Subdivision Committee January 17, 2002 Page 29 Conklin: Ok, the rules are when you split your property you can't have private lines, water and sewer lines crossing this line on private property. Wilson: An easement can't be.. . Conklin- You can't use an easement. You would have to install public sewer and water lines from the public point up to that lot. That can be expensive when you start building public water and sewer lines up to that lot. Typically what we see is you locate your lines and then you draw your lot line around, make sure the lines are on this lot so this would become part of that lot. Wilson: So we need to resurvey? Edwards: Just find the lines. The water service and the sewer service lines. They may be in that easement. Conklin: We don't know where they are at. Wilson: They are in there. Edwards: The sewer is too? Wilson: Yes. Conklin: Hopefully there is no problem. This lot would have to have 70' of frontage, 8,000 sq.ft. lot area and you should be able to meet that. 5) This is talking about what we just talked about. 6) Pursuant to our Master Street Plan, 40' from centerline along Gregg Ave. will need to be dedicated. In order to determine any additional right of ways a survey is required that shall be amended to dimension the right of way from centerline. Edwards: I'm sorry, that should be 45' from centerline. Ward: Does that need to be shown on the plat? Edwards: Yes. Conklin: You can find the centerline of the street, come out 45' and there may be some additional right of way dedication pursuant to our Master Street Plan. This is number six. Ward: We will get you copies of all of this stuff. Subdivision Committee January 17, 2002 Page 30 Conklin: Planning Commission approval of a conditional use to allow the tandem lot is required. We have placed in there the required findings for tandem lots. Those will be made at the time of the conditional use. That is all I have. Ward: Ron, do you have any other comments on engineering? Petrie: The main thing that we have to worry about is where the land is going from Gregg Street up to the back house, the water and the sewer has got to be in there. Wilson: I know for a fact that the sewer line is there. The waterline I think is on the other side of the lower house going up the hill. I am not real sure. I am going to have to locate it. Ward: Ok. Keith, do we have anything on the sidewalks? Do we do anything on tandem lots? Edwards: These are existing houses. Shreve: Under the City Attorney's legal opinion I can't require sidewalks on lot splits. Ward: Ok, that takes care of that. I will go ahead and open it up to the public for public comment on this particular item. Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. John, you will have to get Mr. Jenkins to locate those lines. I think he should show those. Do we need the size or anything like that Ron? Petrie: Not the size, as long as we keep it private we don't have to worry about the size. Ward: Ok, what happens if the sewer line is in that easement but the water line is on the other side of the property, the north line? Would we need to move that waterline and put another waterline in? Petrie: I am not sure. We would prefer it, I can tell you that. It is an existing situation, as long as we do have some type of legal access to get back into there then it may be a situation where we can have an access or some type of easement over a private line, as long as we have that legal ability to get back to it before we can do anything else. I will have to look at the situation. Wilson: If it turns out, say for speculation purposes, if the water is on the north side of that house and we have a sewer line on the other side of the house, what would you approve? It is getting into the point that our utilities are all over the place and split up on these lots. The houses were built in there in 1948 and 1950, they've been in there for a long time. Really, the only reason we are doing this is because the bank Subdivision Committee January 17, 2002 Page 31 wants to do it. We would love to keep this as a one lot situation but the bank wants us to split it up so we are trying to pursue it for them. Petrie: At some point it could be sold separate. Wilson: Possibly, that is what the bank is assuming. Petrie: These people that own this front lot, the ones in the back have no legal right to these sewer lines across this property unless you grant it. Wilson: Or have an easement of some sort. Petrie: I've got to have the legal access to a public line. It would be the same situation for your electric or your gas, they don't run their service lines across other people's property. You've got overhead lines or underground lines running to your property and from there you take your service lines. Wilson: The properties are being sold to my mother and she is going to use them as rental units to sustain her livelihood. I have owned the two properties since 1977 and have lived in the house up above. Anyway, the bottom line is that, yes, if the lots do sale some time in the future, we want them to have access to maintenance and service on the lots. Absolutely, how we accomplish that, be it an easement or whatever is whatever you guys would allow. Petrie: When you do get that information if you have a chance I would like to sit down with you and we could take a look at the situation from there and then I will tell you what we will be recommending to the Planning Commission. Wilson: Ok, I will get in touch with Mr. Jenkins and we will get them located. Thank you. Ward: It is not that hard, he can probably find one pretty quick. Are there any other questions or comments? Bunch: Will you be able to accomplish this between now and the next Planning Commission? Wilson: I am going to get him on the cell phone as soon as I leave. Edwards: Revisions are due Monday by 10:00 a.m., if you can. Wilson: Ok, I will pursue this quickly. Subdivision Committee January 17, 2002 Page 32 Ward: Ok, we will forward this instead of tabling it. Motion: Bunch: I move that we forward LSP 02-8.00 to the full Planning Commission. Marr: I will second. Ward: I will concur. Thanks John. Wilson: Thank you. Subdivision Committee January 17, 2002 Page 33 LSP 02-1.00: Lot Split (Westphal/Cobb, pp 557) was submitted by Bill McClard of Lindsey & Associates on behalf of Bennie Westphal and Matthew Cobb for property located at the southwest corner of Finger Road and W. Hwy 62. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 82.49 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 80.95 acres and 1.38 acres. Ward: We will go back to item number five, LSP 02-1.00 submitted by Bill McClard of Lindsey & Associates on behalf of Benny Westphal and Matthew Cobb for property located at the southwest corner of Finger Road and W. Hwy. 62. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 82.49 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 80.95 acres and 1.38 acres. We saw this a couple of weeks ago and I guess we are going to look at it again. Conklin: Yes. This is the property that is located directly west of the Wal-Mart Supercenter on Hwy. 62. It has frontage on Hwy. 62 and Finger Road. It is being split in order to develop Superior Federal Bank. The item was heard at the January 3`d Subdivision Committee meeting and was tabled pending further resolution of the access for the entire tract. Staff is recommending that this be forwarded to the full Planning Commission. Conditions to address, we still are discussing future access with regard to development of the large parcel and future curb cuts along Finger Road. Staff is recommending that access to both lots be determined and planned with regard to the future development of 80.95 acres. If the lot split is approved without determination of future access, the existing curb cut across from the Wal-Mart entrance shall be removed and no further curb cuts shall be allowed at this location. At the January 3`d meeting I recommended that we take a look at the large scale development to better understand how this all fits together and why staff is concerned. I will leave that up to you guys, if you would like to talk about that. LSD 02-2.00: Large Scale Development (Superior Federal Bank, pp 557) was submitted by Bill McClard of Lindsey & Associates on behalf of Bennie Westphal and Matthew Cobb for property located at the southwest corner of Finger Road and Hwy 62. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.38 acres with a 2,891 sq.ft. building proposed. Bunch: I think we should look at the large scale because that determines where the curb cuts are. Ward: Ok, why don't we go ahead and do that right now. Conklin: Ok. The large scale development, I will go over that staff report. The main condition on that one is the location of the future proposed curb cuts. The large scale development is a 2,891 sq.ft. building for Superior Federal bank. They have no Subdivision Committee January 17, 2002 Page 34 planned access off of Hwy. 62 (Sixth Street). They are showing with their revised drawing, two curb cuts on Finger Road. The two curb cuts have been reduced from three lane curb cuts, one way in, a right and left out which was a 39' curb cut to two 27' curb cuts. That is the main change that has been shown. Sara, do you have anything else on this one? Edwards: I would like to add that they are requesting a conditional use for, I believe it is, six additional parking spaces above code and that is the reason why, besides access, that it does need to be forwarded. Ward: Ok. Conklin: I did talk to Glenn about this, I'm not sure why it is not showing up on this one plan but cross access was going to be shown. Carter: I'm sorry, I forgot that and we can.. . Conklin- Glenn Carter of Carter Engineering told me that that was going to be on the plat. Ward: Where were you going to put it? Carter: I'm Glenn Carter, Carter Engineering and this is Mr. Charles Peden of Superior Federal. Peden: Can we just discuss that cut there? Carter: Can we get to that in a minute? Conklin: I will let the chair of our Subdivision Committee direct the meeting on how you want to proceed on this. Basically, staff is concerned and Paul Libertini is here concerning the curb cuts. I recommend that you ask him his recommendation. Ward: This is why it is here again because this is where we got stopped last time. This is the main issue on the whole thing on whether they can get it approved or not approved and so on. The curb cuts, the ingress and egress, are the main issues here. I think the best thing I can do is hit that first and see if we can get it worked out. Conklin: That's all I have. Carter: I was hoping Kim would be here. I wanted to ask a question about her comments. In our discussions with Tim about southern access one of the concerns was tree mitigation and removal of trees. There are some things that we have been working Subdivision Committee January 17, 2002 Page 35 with Kim on. If I understand this right, she says the only significant tree is a 20" pin oak. If the existing layout is approved she would request a slight design adjustment be made to preserve the significant tree and the narrow buffer of cedar trees along the extreme edge of the development. Then she also says "if the additional property is affected due to access requirements from the south..." And this is what Tim requested and we talked about in his office, "... then the request to preserve these few trees would not be practical and I am in support of removal of these trees if access is preferred to be from the south or if right of way is requested off the south property line." Conklin: I think I can shed some light into this discussion. The other day I contacted Kim because Mr. Carter brought up the issue of we are trying to save trees. Yes, I want to try to save trees also but I also want to look at how to plan 80+ acres for future access because we may end up cutting more trees down if we have individual curb cuts throughout the entire 80 acres. My question to Kim was the new tree ordinance has two options for tree preservation, tree preservation on an individual site and tree preservation on an entire piece of property through the subdivision process. I realize that this is a lot split but there is that process. The subdivision process would allow the owner of the entire piece of property to preserve the minimum percent tree canopy, 15% of the C-2, determine that and get that taken care of right now for the entire acreage. When Kim says that she would not be opposed to removal of those trees it is, from my understanding, looking at the entire site and figuring out how to save trees so it is not on a case by case basis but all at once. That is where we are at with the tree preservation because I was very concerned about arguing that because, with the tree ordinance, we could not plan access into this property at that location. I think she is in agreement that if you decide that it is important for access there we will look at tree preservation on other areas of this property. Bunch: That is basically based on that existing curb cut that is there which could easily be removed. Conklin: Also, I've met with Glenn Carter about reducing these curb cuts to the one way in and one way out and then if you did approve that, they would tear up and replace the curb along this street right here on Finger Road and we would not allow another curb cut right there. With regard to engineering, safety concerns, Paul Libertini is here to talk about the impact of this. Ward: Ok. Carter: I'd like to address that. In my discussions with the seller and buyer of this property, and they are both involved in all of this, the lot split and the development because it affects everything. One of the concerns in the discussion is about access from the Subdivision Committee January 17, 2002 Page 36 south, and we understand how that can be important to have an access that lines up with Wal-Mart and it also provides Planning Commission members some insight as to how access will come to this property and how future development might begin to take place here. The concern was that with the tree ordinance, if we remove the trees is there going to be a mitigation cost for us going along and trying to provide that access now? It all comes down to dollars and cents and we are agreeing that there is mitigation on our site that needs to take place and whether we find room on our site to put more trees or whether we have to pay a fee is something that we can agree to do. When we talk about going off our site with an access that is going to take out a lot of trees then you know it gets to be a pretty significant additional cost. I guess what I'm saying is we're not in objection to providing a south access here. We wanted to find out what the stance was from tree preservation on if we remove those trees, like she says here, is there a mitigation cost involved in that? Conklin: My question to Kim the other day was there are two ways to preserve trees in Fayetteville with the new tree ordinance. We have one owner and we have a lot split proposal here and I think there is an opportunity for this owner to identify what 15% of the trees, along with Kim's agreement, on this to preserve trees and from my understanding there wouldn't be a mitigation fee. You are done. Carter: I see. Conklin: It is master planning. It needs to be on a case by case. Now the ordinance has two options. I can't make you do this and that really applies to a subdivision and this is a lot split. I am willing to get with Kim and work with her. That is why I asked her the question. They are going to have to save 15% of the trees on the site somewhere. You can plan it now. Carter: That answers my question. That is exactly what I wanted to know and it probably might help for us to go on and show that I did work on this Tim and unfortunately I didn't get it done in time for the deadline to get it turned in and that is one reason that we turned this in. I know presenting new drawings at a meeting is not good but there is really only one issue so what I'm showing you is I brought a drawing that just shows that one issue addressed and that is the only change on the whole drawing. What we did was we changed our access on our site to one cut that serves our front traffic to the front of the bank, in and out traffic there. There are two lanes in so a guy can come in and go to the lobby or a guy can come in and go to the teller machines or a guy can come in from Wal-Mart straightly across here and go to the teller machines or the lobby. Edwards: Do you have any extra copies of that Glenn? Subdivision Committee January 17, 2002 Page 37 Carter: Yes I do. This is kind of our attempt to hit what you were talking about. We understand that that is really going to be important and we could have a cross access here and I had shown two lanes there going out. I think probably for the time being we should show one and then when this develops then there will be a need for more lanes and then we could have access here or here in and out of the bank. I think that this plan hits on the planning that the city would like to see and I think it satisfies the developer and everybody. Conklin: You don't have two lanes in. Carter: You don't want two lanes in? Conklin: I haven't seen any traffic engineer ever look at approving two entry lanes in. Libertini: In large developments they have before but I don't see the need for it in this location. Peden: It looks like you would want to get them off of Finger Road. Conklin: I still don't understand why we have to have the two ways out, the right and left out, exiting. Carter: A car coming out going left and a guy coming out here going straight or left. Edwards: They are going to conflict. These guys coming out here are going to run right into this guy. Man: What is right on that road? There is nothing. Who would be taking that? Peden: Nobody. Marr: To me that is the logic. Edwards: Wal-Mart only. Marr: Well if you are going to Wal-Mart you are going straight across. Ward: Well I guess as future development comes on down Finger Road. Bunch: There is an awful lot of that that has been preserved and it is residential. Conklin: There is a conservation easement by Barbara Mormon up there at the top of the hill. Subdivision Committee January 17, 2002 Page 38 Libertini: They could save themselves some money in asphalt if they didn't build that. He could make a T intersection, just a 90° connection. Petrie: What we would want on this that is shown offsite, we would like the stubout to be a public street so we can get the feed back to these other lots. In our point of view that is the ideal situation for us. You would have a public street stubout and then you would just have a driveway off that, off this main public drive. Conklin: What Ron is talking about, we've done this in the past on lot splits. This is Sam Rogers' lot split on Wedington behind Arkansas National Bank, it is going to be the northwest corner, you come in, here is Arkansas National right here. We had a lot of discussion at Subdivision Committee, Planning Commission when this came through. They dedicated 40' of right of way to come through here and access the site. We also saw it last Monday night with Olive Garden. The same thing, planning for future access. That is what we are trying to do here is look at future access into these sites. This one actually came over here too for future access based on our photography I looked at. We do try to plan this. I know it can be difficult for Superior Federal since they are not looking at the entire 80 acres and I don't want to delay the project but it is going to be important because the whole piece of property is for sale, not just this one little piece right here. The entire piece of property is for sale. It is zoned commercial, it is next to Wal-Mart Supercenter. I would guess that if it is for sale and this is developing there is development potential out there. Since you showed us this drawing I guess you are saying this is feasible now and we can have access? Carter: That is what we are trying to do. The thing we had considered is access easement and that can develop into right of way anytime that this develops, or it could be required anytime this develops, but it seems like a little bit of a burden on our developer here for the large scale to try to go to the sellers of the property and require them or try to get them to buy into giving right of way to the city when all they are trying to do is a lot split and sale a piece off. It is something that they haven't heard so it takes some time to determine that if that is what is required and I was just thinking that an access easement would work just as well. Then as soon as this develops, if it develops, then it would be a pretty simple matter I would think to get right of way then. Conklin- We haven't discussed this internally either. Petrie: If I could address that Mr. Chairman. I think that is something we can look at. It is similar to the Olive Garden where we allowed a temporary private driveway to be used until that public road was built. We can look at it as the same situation as that. We are not having to build a small portion at this time but even if you do that you Subdivision Committee January 17, 2002 Page 39 Carter: Ward: Carter: Ward: Marr: still have to set up the egress from this thing so that it will work with the public street. Having these three lanes coming in like it is shown that would still need to be shown where it will work with a future road. One thing that you are not looking at, that you don't see, is we show three lanes coming out there and we've kind of had second thoughts about that and we feel like that third lane that comes out and turns right on Finger Road, we feel like that shouldn't be there now. This would just be a temporary situation until this develops. When this develops then there will be need for three lanes and then you can expand it and build it and go on out. For us to build two exit lanes right there wasn't good thinking on my part when I laid that out. Two lanes coming out of that, one in and one out that we could line up with Wal-Mart. There is not enough significant amount of traffic turning right. You've talked to the owners and this is something that is feasible? We've got an indication from the owners, we had talked to them about sealing this off, tearing that out and closing it up. At first they initially had agreed with that but they've come back and they have indicated that that is not what they want. They want to keep that there. That helps us to play into the city's desires to use that. Why not? We will just go ahead. I personally like on the first drawing where you've got the one in and the one way out closest on Finger Road. I'd like to stay with that instead of having two coming in. On to the south there, I am in total support of working with the owners and have a straight across from Wal-Mart coming in and one also going out either way. You will have to get some kind of an easement or something from the owners. I think with that too you could have that front entrance be the entrance for your lobby and the back entrance being the entrance for the drive thru. There is a way to still do the same direction that you want to do but to have the front access be lobby and the back be drive thru. Also, maybe I just don't understand it but it seems like if you are going to connect into a future public street it would be a 90°, I mean I am going to turn to go down this road and then I turn into your property into a 90° angle. I guess that is the other thing verses what appears to me to be a 45°. Carter: Well it is just a temporary driveway until that develops. Ward: If you look at the Olive Garden and all of those it looks like the same kind of deal. Libertini: You should show a proposal of how it is going to work in the future because you are right it should be a 90° tie in and I think you need to look at the future access to the property and egress because right now you are awful close to Finger Road. I would Subdivision Committee January 17, 2002 Page 40 Marr: Ward: Carter: think you would want to show something with how it is going to work in the future. Usually, the ones that I'm familiar with, is they usually build them and then when they come through with the future road you just cut it and build a new road and they tie into your existing driveway. This way you would have to rebuild your driveway because it wouldn't work in the future revisions. I guess that is what I was looking at more from a future cost. Is there any chance of cross access to the west? Will we need it? If we do this that is two way traffic there it is wide enough for that. That is kind of what we were thinking, it would give you two cross accesses. Conklin: Just visualizing what could occur out there. This could be a shopping center with the bank up on the corner with a bunch of stuff surrounding with access in between. I'm not saying anything that everybody doesn't understand. Typically, on a commercial piece of property you would see something like this and you would have access into there. Ward: Well the bank wants access. They want people coming from restaurants or other places coming in there. Peden: I understand our desire to have this. I understand that but why can't that be future? What is going to happen is if we mandate this then it becomes real tough negotiations between the seller and the buyer cost wise. The seller is agreeable to give an easement here but then they are coming to us for shared improvements. That is ok, I can negotiate with them. I can negotiate with them a lot easier if we do a temporary here rather than having to negotiate with them to build this thing out totally when we don't know when that is going to be an issue. Ward: We're not even asking for that. Peden: I thought that is what we were doing with that red line there. Conklin: No, I'm saying instead of doing it like this why don't you build it where you are not going to tear it up when they extend it. Peden: Ok. Bunch: Then the one on the west end would open to the future. Peden: Well, when you started drawing those red lines, I saw dollars. Subdivision Committee January 17, 2002 Page 41 Bunch: Conklin: Petrie: Tim, would this one on the east be blocked off similar to the situation at Olive Garden in the future so you don't get that stacking? Well, we just saw this and I need to talk to Ron and Paul because I don't know the answer to what the needs are. If it is public it is going to change everything. We have the setbacks and the curbcuts. If it is private then we could look at it a little differently. We have to talk about it but we are not going to make a recommendation. I will ask Ron or Paul for different opinions. When we look at the Olive Garden we closed up the front entrance and move it back to the back corner. Bunch: That is on a dedicated street already that just hasn't been built. Conklin: It is not a dedicated street. It is a planned street, planned access back in there. Bunch: Odds are that this 80 acres will not wind up being three lot splits where it would be under Subdivision level considering it is selling by the square foot so we do need to look at the long term on it. Obviously, it is going to be a commercial subdivision. Marr: Did I also hear in discussion that we're going to one way in on the first drive and one way out and this is going down through here too? Conklin: Yes. Peden: One in and one out. Ward: Basically, I think future development if we got this easement to get in down here then if, and whenever, 3 years or 300 years from now, this road is then brought out it looks to me like it is going to be easy to go on in here with no problem. The egress would be coming out here. Peden: That is our plan exactly. Ward: You aren't going to be coming out. You can see what would happen. You can come in. Peden: That is exactly our thought. Rather than have one up here near Hwy. 62, Sixth Street, this is really not going to go anywhere because it angles. Our thought was that since this is two way to the rear of the building, to have the cut here and then Subdivision Committee January 17, 2002 Page 42 that would give the opportunity to either go into other development or go right or into Wal-Mart. Are we getting close Tim? Conklin: You are going to bring us back a plan. Ron and I will give you a recommendation, public or private. You are going to come back, construct this where it doesn't have to be torn out, it is going to be 90° and you are going to construct it to this point. This will be future and when this lot develops over here, that will be developed. This will be closed off when this is built, this will be your access through here once constructed and you are going to take this to two one way in and one way outs. A one way in and a one way out right here. Your plans will be revised, submitted to us Monday and it goes to Planning Commission. Peden: Can I make one comment about what you just said? Conklin: Sure. Peden: Tim, go back to when you said shut that off up there. Why would we want to do that? Conklin: It is too close to this road. Bunch: That is if it is public. Conklin: If it is private we can talk about that but typically we want to limit the number of curb cuts. Peden: Well, and I appreciate that but if.. . Ward: What about ingress only? Peden: Ok. Conklin: Talk to our engineer here about that. Ward: I can see an ingress but not an out. Carter: Trying to get out if there is traffic stacked up here in the future could be a problem. Ward: Right, but I could see it only being used as ingress. Peden: Yeah, it looks like you would want to get them in and out. Subdivision Committee January 17, 2002 Page 43 Ward: Right. Conklin: Ideally, this would be better though because when they were exiting here they have got a lot of time to get back out. Right here you have got cars all over the place depending on what happens out here. Ward: Peden: Ward: Petrie: Carter: Petrie: I think we need to work with the developer on this one. They are not asking for ingress or egress off of Sixth Street. I think we need to look at that as you know, in some cases some developers would say "Hey, I would not do this project unless I had ingress and egress off of Sixth Street." I think we have to look at that and try to weigh that. I would like to make one comment. I would like to defend Glenn. All this negotiation happened last night. There are five owners of this property and to get them all in sync at the same time, we started when we left here two weeks ago and Glenn stayed last night and came up with this drawing. It is not like he has been sitting on it. Ok, I understand. Have we got all the staff comments? Ron with Engineering? On the lot split itself. Glenn, these lines shown, are you familiar with what those are? You are showing this cutting across this site. Did I not label? There is a utility easement, there is a power line that goes through there. Ozarks Electric has an easement that goes across there and they've got a power line across the middle of the property. That was not submitted previously. We just discovered it and that is a 20' utility easement. I sent the crew out, we did some additional surveying and discovered some more easements there. Ok. I've got one other comment I know Tim wanted you to label this land back through here as a separate tract where the road splits it. By doing that you are establishing a lot with no sewer. That is a catch 22. We can support some type of waiver there. Conklin: Ok, it is our right of way splitting it already. Petrie: Right. You just created another lot and it is going to take a waiver from Planning Commission to create a lot without sewer. Carter: Ok. Conklin- We recommend that waiver. Right? Subdivision Committee January 17, 2002 Page 44 Petrie: Yes. Carter: The sewer doesn't go that far? It ends at Wal-Mart? Petrie: Yes. Bunch: At that end lot is that where it ends Ron? Petrie: This little driveway that cuts off, maybe I could locate that, maybe it is a little further to the south than my maps show. Carter: I'll see. We may have located it and I just didn't see it. I will look and see what we've got. If that case then we need to request a variance? Conklin: We'll take care of it. Petrie: The need is being created by another request by the City so I think we are obligated to take care of that. Ward: Ok, are there any other comments Ron? Petrie: That's it. Ward: Ok, Keith? Shreve: On the standard conditions of approval, item number four should read "The current standards include a minimum 6' sidewalk and a minimum of 10' greenspace on Sixth Street. And a 6' sidewalk and a minimum 6' greenspace along Finger Road." Carter: 6' not 10'. Shreve: Yes. Three will be a 6' greenspace on Finger Road. Carter: Right, that is the way that we've got it shown the way you just said it. Ward: Are there any other staff comments? At this time I will open it to the public and this is for either the lot split 02-1 or the large scale development 02-2 for Superior Federal Bank. Seeing no public comment I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Committee. We have two things in front of us right now. We will have Subdivision Committee January 17, 2002 Page 45 to do the lot split first and both of these are going to be forwarded to the full Planning Commission. This isn't a final deal. Bunch: A question. Tim, on creating this lot 3 you aren't going to count that? Conklin- I'm not going to count that since we are asking once again. Bunch: I just wanted to make sure that that was in the record. Ward: Is there any other discussion? I think what we need first is a motion on this lot split. Motion: Bunch: I move that we forward LSP 02-1.00 to the full Planning Commission. Ward: Ok, do I have a second? Marr: I will second. Ward: Of course that is with all the staff comments. The companion item, the large scale development, do we need to talk any about signs or commercial design standards with this committee? We discussed it before so all of that kind of went on through but Don wasn't here so I think we need to at least walk through that. Conklin- Would you like to go over your building? Ward: You might go over your building with us and tell us again about the materials and the colors and the design. Peden: Split faced block, brick, architectural shingles, store front glass, certainly pavement striping and you have those four elevations so you can see all four sides of it. Containers are enclosed and also the HVAC compressors are enclosed. Are there any questions? Marr: Ward: Peden: This is the Sixth Street view? That is the north view. These are pictures that were taken in Fort Smith somewhere. That is correct. It has a total of seven lanes, six of them are drive up lanes and one is an ATM lane. Subdivision Committee January 17, 2002 Page 46 Ward: Peden: Do you have any comments or questions about the commercial design standards? You might also now talk about the signage on the building and/or monument signs. If you will refer back to this elevation which will be on the Hwy. 62 side, it will have brushed aluminum signage, non -lit and that would be the only sign you would see with the exception of now we have to change to go to banking investments and insurance which would be also in brushed letters, smaller case under the Superior as you see there on the street sign. This is the only building sign that you would see on the drive in side you will just see open and close lights. There is no signage. On the corner of Hwy. 62 and Finger Road, somewhere in this general area we will work with staff to locate that. It is my understanding that a monument sign will be more appropriate than a street or pylon sign I think we've been given dimensions for those and we have fallen in compliance with that. Marr: Is this the actual sign? Ward: Are you going to actually put it there? Peden: We are recommending to put it there but we may position it differently. Conklin: So you can see both sides driving east and west on Hwy. 62. Ward: Are there any other questions or comments? We've got the comments about the sidewalks on Finger Road. I guess the final thing would be if you can get the final approval with the owners on this easement dedication for the ingress and egress of that temporary easement. Carter: How wide are we required to make that? Conklin: Engineering and Planning are going to get together and determine that and give you a call. Petrie: Just wide enough to get your driveway through there. Ward: Will it be 27' or how wide? Conklin- It is a public easement, we need to talk about that. Carter: The driveways we would probably want 27' but the access easement to the back for future access; Petrie: You wouldn't be getting that now. Subdivision Committee January 17, 2002 Page 47 Peden: They are really not asking for that. Ward: No, we're not even asking for it. Carter: Alright, we're making the cut and that is obviously where it is going to go and when that is developed it will be soft. Ward: We are pretty much dictating that in the future when this other land sales or whatnot, it is going to go there. Carter: This action will insure that that happens. Ward: Exactly, that is what we are trying to do. Do I have a motion? Marr: Tim, I have one last question on this. This south elevation building will be on that potential future item, is this right? Conklin- Yes. Motion: Marr: I will move for approval of LSD 02-2, forwarding it to the Planning Commission. Bunch: I will second. Ward: I will concur Thank you gentlemen for doing a great job. Peden: Thank you. Tim, we apologize for pulling this last drawing on you this quickly but it was a 12th hour deal. Bunch: That helped us move it along so we're glad you did it. Carter: A picture is worth a thousand words. Ward: I think it will be better for everybody. Subdivision Committee January 17, 2002 Page 48 LSP 02-6.00 Lot Split (Farrell, pp 283 & 322) was submitted by Shawki Al-Madoun, PE of Northstar Engineering Consultants, Inc. on behalf of Earl and Carolyn Farrell. for property located north of Mount Comfort Road and north and west of Holt Middle School. The property is zoned R- 1. Low Density Residential and contains approximately 183.05 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 145.88 acres and 36.35 acres. Ward: The final item on the agenda today is LSP 02-6.00 for Farrell. It is for property located north of Mount Comfort Road and northwest of Holt Middle School. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 183.05 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 135.88 acres and 36.35 acres. Tim, I guess you are going to take this one also? Conklin: Yes. This is a lot split that is being requested in order to facilitate the future subdivision of tract A. We are recommending that this lot split go to the entire Planning Commission. Condition number one is dealing with the right of way dedication requirements based on the Master Street Plan, 45' from centerline needs to be shown and dedicated along Mount Comfort Road. 90' of right of way needs to be dedicated for the extension of Rupple Road. It needs to be shown all the way to the north property line on tract B. 70' of right of way for the future construction of Double Tree Road needs to be shown. Double Tree Road is also the road that was shown through the preliminary plat for Serenity Place that is along Salem Road. That cuts across the property east and west through tract A. That will need to be shown on this plat. They did ask if we would consider having Double Tree Road stay outside the floodplain and head towards the southwest and staff is in agreement for that which would be shown for approximately this location. Ward: Ok, I've lost where Double Tree Road is. Edwards: I have a drawing, this is the property outline in black here and it basically as shown on the Master Street Plan takes an east/west track. Here is tract A and so it will cross tract A. Bender: It lines up with Clabber Creek. Conklin: It crosses Clabber Creek if you took a straight line with it twice. We are not going to go down the middle of a creek and build that road. Ward: You'd have to put something 40' high. Conklin: Right, so we have worked on that. Condition number two is a 30' sewer easement shall be dedicated for future construction of a sewer line along Clabber Creek. The rest are standard conditions of approval. You may recall that this piece of property Subdivision Committee January 17, 2002 Page 49 was involved in a large annexation and rezoning. At that time an agreement was made between the developer and the Fayetteville City Council with regard to Rupple Road extension. The developer either sold or gave the school district; Did he sale or give this land do you remember? He sold at a reduced price land for Holt Middle School. The developer was also the developer for Serenity Place. That developer is no longer in Fayetteville and has abandoned the project. The agreements that were made between the city and the developer, according to our City Attorney, are no longer enforceable. At this point we are looking at these projects. With this tract split there will be a subdivision coming to the Planning Commission probably within the next month on tract A. At that time we are going to be looking at Rupple Road extension, bridge improvements. We will also be looking at the cost of Rupple Road to bring it to this property and any cost recovery for that extension of that road. We, as staff, are working on that. I just wanted to give you a little background on this project. There has been a lot of activity that occurred in this area. I think overall though that we have a middle school out there and an elementary school and I think it is good that we will see residential developed. That is all I have. Ward: Ok, thanks. Why doesn't the applicant give us his name and any presentation that he may have. Bender: I am Mike Bender with Norstar Engineering. What we've got is several owners out here. Of course we have the developer purchasing tract A for a single family residential subdivision. On the 45' right of way that was basically our error. We just left it off, there is not a problem to fix it. I can put extension on Rupple Road, the 90' of right of way I will be extending along the entire east boundary. We do have a meeting set tomorrow to establish the route for the Double Tree Road right of way. The developer of tract A has agreed, the current street that we have right here. There is a separate owner that would make the decision on the western end of that. We are meeting tomorrow to determine the exact location of that. I don't see a problem. The 30' sewer easement, I believe that at Tech Review it was a 20' but we did get a hand sketch. I need to talk to Ron and see if we can get a better location of that so we can plot it on there. I don't like to plot something on there and then have to abandon this one to move it over or something. I would just like a little more detail. There is a parks fee. We are requesting to waive that at this time. The owner of the entire property has met with the parks staff looking at a large piece of land to be sold, deeded or whatever to the Parks Depaitment. The Parks Board was supposed to look at it Tuesday with their tour. I talked with Kim this morning and they were unable to look at the property due to time constraints. Ward: Ok, thanks Mike. Ron? Petrie: Just in response to that sewer easement, I have sent that to the engineer who is developing those plans to notify us where everything is draining. He will get you the Subdivision Committee January 17, 2002 Page 50 legal description on that. It is where it is sketched on the plan just so you will know where it is at. That was a typo on the 20' because they are having a 48" sewer. Bender: A main interceptor? Petrie: Yes, we will have to have a 30' utility easement on that. Other than that, does Prestise own this piece of property? Bender: No, it is the Farrell's. The property to the east is still Prestise' to my knowledge, I don't know but I think they are still listed as the owners. Ward: Keith, do you have a comment on this? Shreve: Sidewalks will be required when the property is subdivided. Ward: I assume that you are going to try to work out with the Parks Department a trail type of thing and a large greenspace area all through there? Bender: Tract A has already gone through the Parks Board and we have agreed for a 70' wide strip along the north end of that subdivision to be dedicated as a part of that. Ward: The creek is where all the beautiful trees are. Conklin- This was master planned by the previous developer and showed all these green ways and connections and trails and so we've met once already. It has kind of put us back. We talk about master planning these large tracts of land. The previous developer had it all laid out and now we are splitting a smaller piece out. There has been a lot of communication from the Parks Division with Norstar Engineering and Planning about how to achieve that same plan that Mr. Reynolds proposed with the school and the City Council. The project, in my opinion, was sold based on that plan to the City Council. All the agreements of each individual house paying money back for the road and everything. Ward: Bunch: Bender: That bridge will be a big cost trying to get across there, if it is ever brought across to the east. I will ask for public comment, seeing none I will bring it back to the Commission. A question on the acreage, is this just an error it is showing 145.88 and 36.35 but they don't add up to 183.05. There is about .82 missing. What that might be is they probably didn't allow for the 16' strip. This is a piece of land that is a part of tract A. Originally we had plotted it as three lots. It was a .82 acre strip of land that was out here and the owner didn't even realize that he owned Subdivision Committee January 17, 2002 Page 51 it. We are doing a property line adjustment off of tract A that would give this 16' strip back to Holt Middle School. I do remember that strip being .82 acres or so. That is probably the error. Bunch: Where are you showing that? Bender: Right in here. Bunch: The one between the school and the cemetery? Bender: Yes. The owner didn't even realize that he owned it at the time and he doesn't really need it. Ward: Ok. Are there any other comments or motions? Motion: Bunch: I move that we forward LSP 02-6.00 to the full Planning Commission. Marr: I'll second. Ward: I have a second and I will concur. Thank you Mike. Bender: Thank you. Ward: We are finished. Conklin: Just on the Planning Commission terms. I did some research. Back in 1999 there was an ordinance that was passed that set up some rules. When is it considered a full term to count towards your ability to reapply for the Planning Commission. The term limits, you can have two terms maximum and then you have to sit out a term before you can reapply. The rule is if you serve less than half of a full term it doesn't count against you. We've calculated it out. Loren Shackelford only served about 8% of the unexpired first term. Bob Estes was about 47% so he just snuck in there of the unexpired term. Don Bunch fulfilled an unexpired term. I think we calculated you at about 57% so that will count as a term. Are you fulfilling your first or second? Bunch: I'm on my second and I was appointed to the second one in 2001. I will have two years left come April 1st. Subdivision Committee January 17, 2002 Page 52 Conklin: I misspoke at agenda session when I just looked at who was in their second term and you guys were done, out of here, couldn't reapply. Everybody can reapply. You, Don, are on your first term which is expiring so you can definitely reapply and I will get you some information on that. The other thing. Since you mentioned it the other night, the dumpsters in front of all the McDonald's are there to collect phone books. McDonald's along with Southwestern Bell and Waste Management have set those dumpsters for people to drop their phone books off. They should be out of there. Bill Matthews mentioned that McDonald's was painted red and white to increase business at that location. I said "Bill, you got your red and white McDonald's." He is happy. Ward: That is a good project. Conklin: That is a very good project and then they will be out of there. That is all I have.