Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-04-11 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, April 11, 2002 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN FPL 02-4.00: Final Plat (Pine Valley Phase V, pp 363) Forwarded Page 2 LSD 02-11.00: Large Scale Development (Guido's, pp 401) Page 6 Forwarded FPL 02-5.00: Final Plat (McMillan Estates, pp 441) Forwarded Page 13 PPL 02-5.00: Preliminary Plat (Lot 17, CMN Business Park II, ph I, pp 173/174) Page 19 Forwarded MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Don Bunch Sharon Hoover Lee Ward STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Sara Edwards Kim Hesse Tim Conklin Ron Petrie Kim Rogers Keith Shreve Subdivision Committee April 11, 2002 Page 2 FPL 02-4.00: Final Plat (Pine Valley Phase V, pp 363) was submitted by Al Harris of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of BMP Development for property located at 2726- 2840 Wildwood Drive. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 5 acres with 6 lots proposed. Ward: Good morning, welcome to the meeting of the Subdivision Committee. Today is Thursday, April 11, 2002. We have four items on our agenda this morning and the first one will be a Final Plat for Pine Valley Phase V submitted by Al Harris of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of BMP Development for property located at 2726 and 2840 Wildwood Drive. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately five acres with six lots proposed. Sara, are you going to handle this one? Edwards: Yes. This is north of the existing Pine Valley subdivision. The proposal at the Preliminary Plat included duplexes on lots 1-5 and lot 6 is a four plex. We have spoken with at least one resident of Pine Valley who is concerned that a four plex is not consistent with the surrounding development of duplexes and would like this phase to develop with only duplexes and to adopt the same covenants as previous phases. In order to develop lot 6 as duplexes we would have to have the Board of Adjustment grant a variance for lack of frontage to meet the bulk and area regulations because there is not enough street frontage on lot 6 to provide for two duplexes which would be 120' required. Conditions to address and discuss: We are assessing a payment in the amount of $3,360 for improvements to Salem and Shiloh Drives and that was required at the time of Preliminary Plat approval. All street lights are required to be installed prior to signing the final plat and proof of payment by certified check to the electric company for the installation of materials with a receipt is required if the streetlights are not installed. Restrictive covenants shall be submitted prior to signing the Final Plat. Everything else is standard. There are parks fees and those have been paid, $5,250 paid in 2000. Ward: Ok, thanks. On the restrictive covenants, is that something required? Edwards: We would like to require it just because through some previous rezonings we have spoken with the residents who would like to see this phase be subject to the same restrictive covenants as their phase which is Pine Valley. Ward: Ok. Subdivision Committee April 11, 2002 Page 3 Conklin: Ward: Petrie: Harris: Ward: Hesse: Ward: Edwards: Ward: Bunch: Edwards: Ward: Edward: Ward: Harris: Ward: Harris: I've talked with Mark Marquiss about this and I'm not sure if he has told Mr. Harris whether or not they are planning on doing that but I have expressed the same concern to the owner the other day. Ok. I guess I will start with Ron with Engineering. Just one little housekeeping item, on your line types you show 100 year floodplain, you are bringing that floodplain out beyond what looks like the 500 year flood. There is a little bit of confusion there. I just wanted to clear that up, that's all I have. Ok. Ok, thanks Ron. Kim? No comment. We have already got the parks fees paid. Sidewalks are required along Wildwood Drive. From what I understand they will be guaranteeing those with a letter of credit or cash and they will be built at the time that the lots are developed. Ok. Do you have that as a condition of approval? That is number 7 and then in number 8 it talks about the guarantees. Ok, that is good. Is Chuck or Keith going to be here today? I haven't heard anything. At this time I will go to the applicant. Al, do you have any questions at all? I don't believe so. It is pretty straight forward. Ok, thanks. At this time I will also open it up to the public. Is there any public comment on this Final Plat for Pine Valley? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and I will bring it back to the Committee. Al Harris with Crafton, Tull & Associates, can I make one question for Sara? Orignally on the Preliminary Plat the Planning Commission asked for a 30'x40' access easement for access between the two lots, between Subdivision Committee April 11, 2002 Page 4 one and two, and three and four, and five and six. The owner couldn't remember why they wanted that and if they don't really need it he would like to take that dual access off. Ward: Tim or Ron, do either one of you have a reason? I remember when this came through but I can't recall. Conklin- I'm not sure at this time. Ward: I think the best thing for us to do is look back and see what reason it was because I don't remember it either. I guess if it is not a good reason maybe you can take it off. Edwards: I can help you out with that. I did some research and the only place it talks about it was back at Plat Review when this was preliminary platted and the reasoning is due to the narrow lot configurations, shared driveways are requested to reduce the number of curb cuts and potential traffic conflicts. Conklin- We can take a look at that before Planning Commission. Ward: Ok. Does anyone have any comments or motions or anything? Conklin: Is Mr. Marquiss planning on having restrictive covenants? Harris: I asked him that in a phone message and he never called me back so I don't think he would object to it because he had the rest of Pine Valley. Conklin: Ok. Harris: But I haven't heard anything from him yet. Conklin: The issue with the four plex being the two duplex lots, if he could find that out. I have talked with him, I just happened to run into him in the Engineering office and I expressed the same concerns. Between now and Planning Commission I would like to find that out. Edwards: I would like to request that you submit a letter requesting removal of those access easements so that we can have the Preliminary Plat and give us a reasoning of why you feel that they are not needed. Harris: Ok. Ward: I think that the lot 6 is probably a couple of acres isn't it? Subdivision Committee April 11, 2002 Page 5 Edwards: Just under two. Ward: Trying to put a four plex on about two acres, I don't see anything wrong with that. It is zoned R-2, you can build a lot of units on an R-2 lot besides a little four plex. There again, it doesn't have much road frontage to put in separate buildings, divide it up. I guess that's the reason it is the one big lot instead of two or three small lots. I think the four plex idea is much better for that area. I don't think that is going to effect the integrity of the neighborhood. Are there any other comments, questions or motions? Motion: Bunch: I move that we forward FPL 02-4.00 to the full Planning Commission with the conditions as described and the staff notes. Ward: Ok. Hoover: I will second. Ward: I will concur. Thanks Al. Harris: Thank you. Subdivision Committee April 11, 2002 Page 6 LSD 02-11.00: Large Scale Development (Guido's, pp 401) was submitted by Mike Anderson on behalf of Engineering Design Associates on behalf of Mark Bariola for property located on Steamboat Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.023 acres with a 4,275 sq.ft. restaurant proposed. Ward: The second item on the agenda this morning is LSD 02-11.00 for Guido's submitted by Mike Anderson on behalf of Engineering Design Associates on behalf of Mark Bariola for property located on Steamboat Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.023 acres with a 4,275 sq.ft. restaurant proposed. On this particular issue I can act as the Chairman but I will be recusing as far as voting and so on since I was involved in the lot sale. Who is going to handle this one? Conklin: Sara is going to go over that report. Edwards: This is in the Design Overlay District. It is part of the Wedington Place subdivision. It is located directly north of where Country Inn and Suites was approved. They are proposing 41 parking spaces. The ordinance requires a minimum of 22 and a maximum of 27 spaces. They are requesting a conditional use for an additional 14 parking spaces. As part of that we are recommending that we forward this large scale to hear the conditional use with it at Planning Commission. They are requesting a waiver of a tree preservation plan because no trees exist on the property or within 50' of the propertyline and our Landscape Administrator is in agreement with that. The design theme in this subdivision requires an arched feature and brick materials which they have incorporated. Conditions to address or discuss are at least one handicap space shall be labeled as van accessible and Planning Commission approval and determination of compliance with commercial design standards and Design Overlay District regulations. Ward: Ok, thanks Sara. I will go ahead and go through the City staff comments. Ron? Petrie: We will need written approval from the property owners to the south and to the east with the proposed grading offsite. I think they are aware of that, I just want to make it part of the comments. Ward: Ok, so they need written from both parties? Petrie: We have a 5' setback on any cut of hill slopes and property lines and to the south they are going over the property line and to the east they are going right up to it with a pretty severe cut. Subdivision Committee April 11, 2002 Page 7 Ward: Ok. Is that your only comment? Petrie: Yes Sir. Ward: Kim on tree preservation? Hesse: There are no issues of tree preservation because there are no trees. The only comment is that we need to add a condition that the irrigation, do you think they are going to do automatic or hose? Feinstein: I think we indicate hose there. Do you have a preference on that? Hesse: As long as they are within 100' of all irrigation and so they will need more than one. The other comment is at the time you go for your building permit we will just need this plan dressed up a little bit with more details. That is all I have. Ward: Thanks Kim. Keith on Sidewalks, are there any concerns? Shreve: There is an existing 6' sidewalk along Steamboat and our only comment is when they construct their new driveway approach is to maintain the sidewalk continuously through the driveway. Ward: Ok. I guess this is commercial so there won't be any park fees. I will ask the applicant to identify yourself if you have any questions. Feinstein: I am Andy Feinstein and this is Brett Watts with Engineering Design Associates. The only comment I had was on item 6B, a separate easement plat for this project. We indicate some easements and label them as being currently review for lot 5A and there are no main line extensions proposed for our development. We would ask to waive that requirement as it will be basically covered by lot 5A and I think they are further along in the process. Ward: Ok, will we need something in writing for that Sara? Edwards: No, that is fine. Feinstein: We will just scratch that. The adjacent owner permissions are in progress. We have gotten some positive feedback from them and those should be in hand soon. Ward: I think since we have to deal with commercial design standards and making sure that the same theme of Wedington Place runs through this we Subdivision Committee April 11, 2002 Page 8 would kind of like you to go over the type of construction and materials being used and how it looks similar to the other theme out there in Wedington Place that is already out there. Who is going to handle that Andy? Feinstein: This is the project architect, Jim Key. He prepared that and has that ready. I think his understanding was that as far as a sample board he could just basically indicate on the city's list what was going to be used. Key: My name is Jim Key. I am the architect for the applicant. When we first approached the city about developing this lot we were given a list of construction specifications that were submitted by Clary Development, which is the approved list of the subdivision material to be used. That included two different colors of E.F.I.S. materials, Amarillo white and monestary brown. There are two different Acme brick colors, red sunset and a park avenue blend. It was our intention to use those as well as a concrete block material at the base which was also in the provided materials and elevations by the city of the adjacent development to our south, the Country Inn and Suites which is currently in the process of getting underway with construction. These colors didn't quite match what the others show. Obviously, you can realize that there is a list of flexibility in some of the colors perhaps but the elevations submitted will be a neutral colored E.F.I.S. material, a brown brick and a brown or neutral toned material block for approximately 32", possibly a little higher, up to 36". You have seen the elevations we have submitted. We revised those since Technical Plat Review to include brick pylasters with a little less E.F.I.S. material. We have actually been developing that a little further with possibly looking at altering the amount of brick to get a texture rhythm on the side of the building where there is a long expanded strip. We are putting an arched canopy over the patio area for the southwest developed corner to articulate that facade which is seen off of Wedington Road. That was an issue of concern discussed with staff at the Plat Review meeting previously. The arched top on the periphet is intended to work in conjunction with the elevations that were being proposed for the shopping center on the southwest. The realty company was given the small arches over the window, the eyebrow arch, it has the contiguous design element on all the buildings within the development and I believe that the McDonald's has incorporated a few of those small arches as has the Sonic structure that has been located to the southwest corner of this subdivision. I have not had a chance to get copies for all of the Commissioners today but I've got some information that is basically the same thing, just a little wider copies and there is the brick and the rear facade is screened. Fascia to screen the roof top material and equipment and it is a four sided fascade. The downspout is on the eastern facade. Subdivision Committee April 11, 2002 Page 9 Conklin: Key: Ward: Key: Ward: Key: Ward: Key: Ward: Feinstein: Edwards: Watts: Feinstein: Edwards: Ward: Edwards: Ward: Edwards: Ward: They have modified their elevations substantially from Plat Review. The biggest difference is the southwest elevation with the freezer. We layed in a masonry basin around the freezer component. That looks a lot better. I will be glad to answer any questions that you might have. The materials are actually the ballot that was approved prior to the subdivision approval. Right. Ok. I think the main thing is when it goes to full Planning Commission it needs to be clean. I will bring materials for the final elevations on them. I wanted to ask if it was necessary to try to bring material samples given the type that they are. We might already have them. I would be glad to gather those before Planning Commission. If you can, that would be great. It always looks good. I have one more question. On the conditional use for the parking, do you see an issue for that? You haven't turned it in? We did. I'm in error. Yes, it should go along with this to Planning Commission. Is that just a letter of why they need more parking? Basically and an application and a fee. I think they have already met that. How many more parking places are they asking for? Fourteen. I guess what you need to do is show us relationships of what we've approved with some of the other restaurant chains and I guess we can get all those facts and statistics since the last few approved. At this time I will open it up to the public. Is there any public comment on this particular Subdivision Committee April 11, 2002 Page 10 item? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and I will bring it back to the Commission. Bunch: One question I have is on this dumpster, do you anticipate having trash pickup, have you worked out a schedule? If that runs during business hours that is going to be pretty awkward having a dumpster turning around when I am assuming with a pickup window you have a drive thru and food to go so that would create a considerable bottleneck having a dumpster... Feinstein: I think the intention is to schedule that for off hours during nonbusiness operations so that the truck can come against the traffic flow. Bunch: Is there any other place to put that where you don't have to have the trash truck making a 180° and coming back around? Feinstein: We bashed our heads on that one quite a bit and decided if we are going to maximize the number of parking that we are trying to get that that was really the corner we needed to tuck it into. Bunch: As opposed to relocating these two spaces adjacent to it? Feisntein: I don't know if we were bumping up against the issue of having the doors facing the street with that arrangement. Even though it is behind the building. Hoover: They are not going to be serving breakfast. Bunch: Ok. Feinstein: They will open at 11:00 so that leaves a half of a day for them to get in there and out of there. I do not foresee a conflict there. Bunch: It looked like the running radius was pretty tight and also the scheduling. Feinstein: Yes. We have some extra width in that far eastern corner so that those trucks can swing a little bit wide right there. The striping indicates painted areas so there won't be any curb construction for them to get their wheels back around through there. We have reviewed that with the client to make sure that they are comfortable with the type of service delivery trucks they are going to be using and they don't see foresee a problem. Their existing facility I think has a similar situation and they are comfortable with the radius. Hoover: Don, I know that you've been out there. Can you see the rear of this from the street? Subdivision Committee April 11, 2002 Page 11 Bunch: It is questionable of whether or not you can see it from I-540. You can't see the rear of it from Steamboat. There is a motel. Hoover: Ok, I was worried about the rear. Bunch: I don't think we need to concern ourselves with cross access issues since it is on a deadend street. Feinstein: Exactly. I think that is part of the reason why lot 5A was granted a waiver on their cross access and we have indicated a pedestrian access but we were told that that would not be an issue as it was a cul-de-sac. Conklin- They are showing a sidewalk right by the patio area going over to the hotel. The idea is that the people staying at the hotel will go over there. Feinstein: Right. We tried to locate it to be in alignment with their sidewalk, we tried to coordinate their plans. I have a question about that. We indicated a handicap accessible ramp, is that typical for cross access pedestrian? I know you like to see it, I just wondered if it is required? Conklin: Yes. Feinstein: Even on a private sidewalk like this? Conklin: Yes. Bunch: This is in close proximity to the seniors development. Handicap access would probably help a lot on business from surrounding neighborhoods. Feinstein: I was just thinking of connection with the hotel to our south. Bunch: That also. Feinstein: We checked the grades on their development plans and we are matching very closely right to them. Edwards: I would like to request these new elevations be submitted. I can go with 11 copies now so I can hand it out to the full Planning Commission and they can know what they are approving because it has changed. Bunch: It is all four sides and I believe that the northeast elevation didn't have one. Edwards: Jim, did you hear that? They want all four sides. Subdivision Committee April 11, 2002 Page 12 Key: I will get eleven copies of all four to you by this afternoon. Ward: Ok, thank you. Are there any other concerns on commercial design standards? Is there a motion? This is going to be sent to the full Planning Commission. Motion: Hoover: I will move that we forward LSD 02-11 to the full Planning Commission. Ward: Do I have a second? Bunch: I will second. Ward: Since I'm not voting on this issue I will not concur. Thank you gentlemen. Subdivision Committee April 11, 2002 Page 13 FPL 02-5.00: Final Plat (McMillan Estates, pp 441) was submitted by Steve Hesse of Engineering Design Associates on behalf of TFJ Nominee Trust for property located at the southeast corner of Wedington Drive and Futrall Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 27.48 acres with 10 lots proposed. Ward: The third item on the agenda this morning is a Final Plat for McMillan Estates submitted by Steve Hesse of Engineering Design Associates on behalf of TFJ Nominee Trust for property located at the southeast comer of Wedington Drive and Futrall Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 27.48 acres with 10 lots proposed. Sara are you hadling this one too? Edwards: Yes. Just in case anyone doesn't know where this is, it is across from Karstetter & Glass on Wedington. A Preliminary Plat was approved on December 22, 1999. They have constructed the streets and done some channel work in order to change the boundaries of the floodplain and that was all approved by the Corp. of Engineers and FEMA. We are requesting that this be forwarded to the full Planning Commission. Conditions to address include: 1) The floodway and floodplain shall be depicted on the final plat per the FEMA approved LOMR. The LOMR is what FEMA has actually approved after the work has been finished and so that is the boundary and what we need to reference on this plat. 2) The monument sign on Wedington does not seem to be 10' off when I scaled it. We need to make sure that that meets the required 10' setback. 3) Planning Commission approval of the design theme for the subdivision. This was required at the time of Preliminary Plat approval and has not yet been submitted. In order to continue in the current review cycle this must be submitted by Monday, April 15, 2002 by 10:00 a.m., which is the standard revision deadline. 4) The deed restricted area shall be identified on the plat and shall reference the recorded instrument number of the deed restriction. 5) Proof of payment for streetlight materials and installation shall be submitted prior to filing the Final Plat. This shall be submitted in the form of a copy of a certified check made payable to the electric company with a receipt. 6) The following notes shall be added to the plat: a) All development must comply with the required design theme set forth in the covenants. b) Only one access to Futrall shall be allowed from Lot 8. c) No freestanding signs shall be placed on Lot 10. d) All retaining walls shall be set back a minimum of two feet from the right-of-way. e) All retaining wall construction shall be shown on the building permit and have the approval of the City Engineer. 7) I am asking that notes two through four be removed and replaced with a note that states lots 1,3,5, and 7 will be required to have front facades facing Wedington and Futrall. What I am trying to do is make sure that they have the front facades even though there is this unbuildable lot between the street and those lots. Everything else is standard. Subdivision Committee April 11, 2002 Page 14 Ward: Thanks Sara. Ron, do you have any concerns as far as engineering? Petrie: Just one thing. On the Flood Zone Certification, that looks like it is an old note. You are stating that the Corp. of Engineers study determined these basic flood elevations dated 8-18-98. You need to reference when the LOMR was approved and you reference that number and take that off. That is all that I've got. Ward: Ok, thanks Ron. Kim with Landscaping? Hesse: No comments. Ward: Ok, Keith with Sidewalks? Shreve: No comment. Ward: Isn't their a major trail going through this section of the property? Shreve: They are proposing an 8' asphalt trail running along the channel here. Ward: Would that be a sidewalk or asphalt trail or concrete or grass? Shreve: I think they are planning on ashphalt. Edwards: Are you intending to bond that and have that built out with the lot development, is that the idea with the trail? Feinstein: I think the bond amount just covers the sidewalks along the street frontages but they will have that sidewalk built. Conklin: The trail and is 8' wide and is asphalt. I would ask that Steve Hatfield, our Trails and Greenways Coordinator, review that before you build it and make sure it is acceptable. Petrie: Those plans were approved before Steve Hatfield came and they were reviewed by the Sidewalks and Trails Committee. I just don't want them to double up now on requirements. Conklin: My point was that I would like someone at the city to approve it if it has been approved, the cross section and design. Feinstein: This is not part of the Master Trails system. This was going to be in lieu of... Subdivision Committee April 11, 2002 Page 15 Petrie: This is replacing the sidewalk that should be along Shiloh Drive. Conklin: I just don't want it to fall apart a year from now. Petrie: I don't think that anybody wants that but I am saying that this has been reviewed and approved by our Sidewalk and Trails, Sidewalk Division now. Conklin: It has been reviewed and approved, thank you Ron. Edwards: Will they do an inspection like they would a sidewalk? Shreve: We will inspect it. Ward: As far as parks, this is commercial so there are no parks fees involved. Will the applicant identify yourself if you have any concerns or questions or presentation. Feinstein: Andy Feinstein and Brett Watts with Engineering Design Associates. There are really no issues with any of these comments. I guess we just need to coordinate with Inspections on the sidewalk. As far as the floodway designation, would you agree that where we have a little knock out label in the middle of that gray area if we say floodway per LOMR with the new date of that approval, will that satisfy that? Conklin: For the record Andy, the letter of map revision, the hundred year floodplain elevations and water are all contained within that channel and that's based on ultimate buildup out of stream two, have you looked at that? Feinstein: I believe so. The floodway and floodplain are coincided. Conklin: In the channel, contained all within the channel? Feinstein: Yes. Conklin: Ok. Feinstein: The designation of the deed restricted area is going to complicate the graphic readability but we will try to get that on there somehow. It is basically lot 10. Petrie: And beyond, it is part of that 20' buffer on all those other lots. What I would like to see on that note is if you can call it out as what it is and then further describe it by note. I would like to also have that note describe Subdivision Committee April 11, 2002 Page 16 what activities are prohibited so it is very clear to whoever owns these lots, they know they can't mow that, they can't touch it basically. It should be pretty clear on the plat. Feinstein: Ok. Ward: Thanks Ron. Andy, do you have any other questions about these particular conditions that are needing to be addressed? Feinstein: No, it is all pretty clear, pretty straight forward. We will get the sign straightened out there. Ward: At this time I will open it up to the public for public comment Is there anyone here who would like to address this particular issue? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. Bunch: I have a question. On condition 7, where it says taking out notes 2-4 and replacing them with a note that says lots 1,3,5, and 7 will be required to have front facades facing Wedington and Futrall, on Lot 1, the one facing Futrall I guess it is kind of strange, the previous note showed that there was also a front facade facing Marinoni and also McMillan Drive. The question I have is what are we losing on Lot 1 by having the blanket? Hoover: The other thing, that means that is incorrect because it is in the Overlay District. All of this is in the overlay? Conklin: Yes. Hoover: Anything draping a road must be a front facade. Conklin: What we are trying to do here is yeah, we can read the ordinance and we know where the streets are. We don't want the argument that there is this deed restricted floodway/floodplain and this is not considered a front by future developers. Bunch: Could we rewrite that note to better reflect that? Conklin: We can do that. Bunch: It is basically trying to mitigate the lot 10 or whatever it is. Conklin: Yes. That is the intent, what we are trying to accomplish with that note. We don't want to argue about whether or not that is a front. Subdivision Committee April 11, 2002 Page 17 Hoover: Conklin: Bunch: Edwards: Ward: Conklin - Feinstein: Bunch: Feinstein: Bunch: Feinstein: Bunch: Feinstein: Just when I read this note it meant to me that McMillan Drive could then have a rear. I know that wasn't the intention of it at all. Not at all. Another question. On lot 8, when we saw this as a Preliminary Plat was there some note that was supposed to be on here concerning the cross access to lot 9 since Futrall is a one way and since lot 8 is so narrow on McMillan Drive that there would probably not be access on McMillan Drive, then without having to go completely around Markham Hill, there is no way if you miss lot 8 to get back to it. I am not aware of a note being on here but I can look at that. I think we discussed that. We can look into that and check that because that is serious. We could put a note on there to warn the buyer that they are not going to get a driveway on McMillan. Maybe run an easement or something in the corner of lot 9 to where we can get an access off McMillan. That might create an unsellable lot. Some people might be content to be able to turn out onto Futrall. It may not present that much of an issue. Turning out is no big problem, it is turning in. You know it is kind of hard to get to a business. I think they prefer to just require cross access. I guess our discussion previously was that if lot 8 develops before lot 9 develops then how do you put a cross access in. It looks like there probably needs to be some sort of an easement arrangement to allow access to lot 8 from McMillan should it be developed prior to the time that lot 9 develops. That is similar to what we've done in CMN with lot 17. Right. Depending on what a lot 9 buyer might do, if they are not comfortable with the location of that easement I guess they could relocate it or that type of thing. We could indicate an easement, an access easement off of 8 to McMillan I guess is the intention there. Let me run that by the client before I agree to that. Subdivision Committee April 11, 2002 Page 18 Ward: Ok. Are there any other concerns? This is going to the full Planning Commission so it is not going to be approved today anyway. Are there any other concerns? Bunch: That was the only one. The rest of it looked pretty good. Ward: Sharon? Hoover: No. Ward: I think we've covered everything to send it forward. Motion: Hoover: I will make a motion to forward to the full Planning Commission FPL 02- 5.00. Bunch: I will second. Ward: I will concur Thanks gentlemen. Subdivision Committee April 11, 2002 Page 19 PPL 02-5.00: Preliminary Plat (Lot 17, CMN Business Park II, ph I, pp 173/174) was submitted by Christopher Roger, P.E. of CEI Engineering Associates on behalf of Marjorie Brooks and Nanchar, Inc. for property located between Mall Avenue and 71B and north of Fulbright Express Way. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 21.55 acres with 5 lots proposed. Ward: Conklin: Edwards: Last, but not least, is a Preliminary Plat for CMN Business Park II, Phase I submitted by Chris Rogers of CEI Engineering on behalf of Marjorie Brooks and Nanchar, Inc. for property located between Mall Ave. and 71B and north of Fulbright Expressway. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 21.55 acres with five lots proposed. Tim, are you handling this one? Sara is handling this. Previously we heard plans for the Olive Garden for part of that lot 17. That is not part of this plan. They are planning to construct Van Asche into the property. We heard this at the last Subdivision Committee and did forward it to the Planning Commission but we did have a lot to work out so we did want it to come back to the Subdivision Committee. The only issue that we have is we need to have the Planning Commission determine the requested waiver for a public street longer than 500' ending in a cul- de-sac. Everything else is standard. Ward: Ok. What is allowable on a cul-de-sac as far as length? Conklin: Our subdivision regulations do have the maximum length of a dead-end street at 500'. Ward: Is it 500' or 1,000'? Conklin: 1000' in hilly terrain. In this situation the Master Street Plan was amended and the decision was made to connect Mall Ave. and they built a bridge across Mudd Creek and the decision was made not to connect Shiloh and Van Asche together due to the fact that the intersection up at Joyce is not very well designed with adequate stacking room at that light. The decision was made for traffic in this area to use Mall. In the future this cul-de-sac may be extended and a waiver will have to be granted. Ward: Ok. Is there any reason that we wouldn't ever grant that waiver to extend that road? Conklin- There is no reason not to. We have actually debated internally here at the City whether or not it could be a private drive or a public street also Subdivision Committee April 11, 2002 Page 20 Ward: Petrie: Ward: Hesse: because it is serving a large lot. They have chose to make it a public street at this point in time. I assume that everybody understands that lot 17C, which is 15 or 16 acres, will I assume, 99% chance, that it will be divided several more times. That is what I see as what will happen in the future. I assume that Van Asche will definitely be extended and 17C will change to several smaller lots. Ron with Engineering? Where this sonar discharges out of the detention pond, we would just ask that you coordinate that with Steve Hatfield. There were some pipes designed underneath that trail. We may need this pipe extended under that trail so it won't interfere with that construction. You can coordinate that. One thing that I like to have before we have a final plat, just to bring this up for discussion, is the maintenance of the detention pond, who is going to maintain it, do we need some special rights since we have all the lots that are using that as their storage and detention storage, when the other lots develop do we need any private or public easements. Those are just some issues I like to think about and have addressed later in the process. I had asked for the permit application and just looked in my packet, I don't have it in my file. I don't know if it was turned in and I misplaced it or what happened. I just don't have it. If I could get a new one. There will be two conditions that I will need to add to the report before it goes to Planning Commission, those are the same conditions we have had for all of CMN. We need the Environmental Specialist to review your discharges into the wetlands and the 404 restricted areas to verify that you will meet those requirements and we will look at some additional best management practices to be implemented either in your detention pond or in some of your drop down structures. We will need that addressed before we can approve construction plans. That is all. Thanks Ron. Kim, it looks like they've got a brand new tree preservation plan that is two days newer than the other one I was studying so I guess you need to go over this a little bit with us to see what has changed and what is different. In our discussion at the last Subdivision Committee we were working with the City Attorney's office on what would be required for this with the new ordinance. After further review, since there were no restrictive covenants put over the tree preservation area, there is not the requirement to go to City Council to remove those trees. What they have chosen to do, if you will remember in the new ordinance there is a couple of options for commercial subdivisions, one is that they can preserve the required percentage for the entire subdivision up front which allows each lot to develop there forth without bringing through tree preservation. That is Subdivision Committee April 11, 2002 Page 21 Ward: Hesse: what they have chosen to do. The requirement is 15% and that new plan shows where that 15% exists. The trees that were in that open field where an existing pond used to be, the pond is still there, it has been drained and then south of that pond, those are the trees they are proposing to remove. This plan still shows some of them as Pecans. What they really are are Ash trees. I went out there with Tim Conklin, and several of them are in poor health. If not poor health, poor structure, they've got large cavities in the trunk or large portions of the canopy are gone. So we feel that with the 15% we are showing preserved, we are still preserving some of the best quality of canopy on the overall site. The benefit of doing this up front is that we are preserving additional canopy along that creek that wouldn't have been required for preservation through their deed restriction. There are some slight adjustments that we might look at at the final plat stage. It looks like there is a little bit that is still in a setback area along Mall Ave. but I think we just need to really look at it when we gets to that final plat stage. I don't think there is going to be any additional issues. All the trees that you are showing that are in poor health, what do we do about those? Do we just leave them there? Is that part of the tree preservation? Actually I would imagine that some of them will be removed during construction of the cul-de-sac. I am assuming, because those trees that are at the end of the cul-de-sac are on quite a little slope and you are actually lowering the road so I am assuming that you will take some of that slope out and remove some of those trees during the construction of the subdivision. It is really up to the client what they do with the remaining trees that are shown. They are not going to be of any hazard until something is proposed for that site. They are in the completely open field. Ward: Ok. Hesse: The only other statement is that when we do go through final plat they will have to be on an easement plat as a protected tree preservation area. Ward: Ok, thanks Kim. Keith with Sidewalks, do you have any issues to address on this particular Van Asche? Shreve: They are proposing a 6' sidewalk and a 10' greenspace on both sides of Van Asche and that meets the requirements. Ward: On the cul-de-sac, will that have a sidewalk around that too is that kind of a wasted type of deal? What do we have to do? Subdivision Committee April 11, 2002 Page 22 Shreve: This is supposedly temporary at this point? Slyder: Yes. Shreve: Then we are not requiring sidewalks around it at this point. Ward: Ok. This is commercial so there are no parks fees or anything to be considered. At this time I will bring it to the applicant. Who is going to talk for this particular issue? Koch: James Koch with CEI Engineering Associates. Ward: Do you have any questions about some of these issues or anything that you would like to address? Do you have any concerns? Koch: No Sir. I would like to point out that the trees we are saving were not on the original tree preservation plan that was issued for this ultimate development here. We did get that data to put on this land and subsequently they are the better trees to be saved. That is the only comment I have. Ward: Great, thanks. At this point I will open it up to the public if there is any public comment on this particular item. Seeing none, I will close it to the public and I will bring it back to the Committee. Of course this is a preliminary plat so we will look at it several more times before it becomes the final. What happens Tim if they go ahead and start all over again if they decide they need to extend Van Asche further all of the sudden? Conklin: They will come back in with a preliminary plat for that 17C. They haven't submitted plans yet but they are working with a client for 17B and trying to create that lot. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised to see something on lot 17C within this next year. Ward: Ok. Are there any other questions or comments? Bunch: On the table it says additional tree list, is that nomenclature fine with you Kim? It is kind of misleading, it looks like trees are being added where it is actually existing trees. Hesse: What we could do is, I don't know if we need to revise that for this Planning Commission meeting or if we can handle that at the final plat stage. That is up to you. It is a little confusing. I understood it because I worked with them closely. Subdivision Committee April 11, 2002 Page 23 Bunch: Koch: Hesse: Conklin: Bunch: Hesse: Bunch: Hesse: Bunch: Petrie: Bunch: Petrie: Bunch: Petrie: Ward: Trees have been such an issue on this whole project, just for the sake of clarity to have that spelled out to where those are actually preserved trees. It doesn't matter. What if we just did this one sheet revised and provided enough for our staff's files and Planning Commission, would that be enough? I think that is a good point. I want it all documented and corrected. Then have an additional preserved tree list and one for the file? We would just put them all under the existing tree list and then revise how they are numbered on the plan so that you don't have the "A" and then 12 copies for the Planning Commission submitted by Monday at 10:00 a.m. That will work with me and then they've revised their analysis report to meet what is shown here so we will have that for the file. One of the revisions on the preliminary you see today is showing an area that had previously been scheduled to be removed down in the southwest corner of lot 17C, that is now going to be preserved. Is that going to be in an easement and save that 32" walnut and all of that? Actually that tree is not that healthy. A lot of those that are in the ravine though are probably the better quality. Species wise they are more conducive for that wet soil so they are the Ash and the Locust, the Pecan, actually as you drive by, you will notice a lot of the top of that tree is gone. Ron, do we need to include anything in our conditions on the access, the drainage access for the pond that you mentioned or how do we address that? Vehicular access? No, what you made your comment about. I was going to clean it up at the final plat stage. I like to get feedback from them because they are probably more aware of how it may develop. As far as making a motion at this level we don't need to address that? I don't think so. Are there any other comments or motions? Subdivision Committee April 11, 2002 Page 24 Motion: Bunch: I move that we forward PPL 02-5.00 to the full Planning Commission with the additional conditions that the Environmental Specialist review the 404 requirements and the development of best management practices and all other staff comments. Ward: Do I have a second? Hoover: Second. Ward: I will concur. We will see you in a couple of Mondays from now. This meeting is concluded.