Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-05-02 - MinutesSubdivision Committee May 2, 2002 Page 1 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the City of Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, May 2, 2002 at 8:30 a.m. in room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain Street, Fayetteville Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN PPL 02-4.00: Preliminary Plat (Ash Acres P.U.D., pp 367 Tabled Page 2 LSP 02-16.00: Lot Split (Mahaffey, pp 489) Approved Page 6 PPL 02-2.00: Preliminary Plat (Clabber Creek Place, pp 322) Forwarded Page 8 FPL 02-6.00: Final Plat (Yorktowne Square, Phase III, pp 214) Forwarded Page 21 LSD 02-14.00: Large Scale Development (Fayetteville School District, pp 443) Page 24 ADM 02-13.00: Administrative Item (Pack Rat, pp 289) Page 38 MEMBERS PRESENT Don Bunch Loren Shackelford Don Marr Forwarded Approved MEMBERS ABSENT Lee Ward Sharon Hoover STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Tim Conklin Sara Edwards Ron Petrie Kim Hesse Chuck Rutherford Steve Hatfield Eric Schuldt Subdivision Committee May 2, 2002 Page 2 PPL 02-4.00: Preliminary Plat (Ash Acres P.U.D., pp 367) was submitted by W.B. Rudasill of WBR Engineering on behalf o f Rob Stanley for property located south of Ash Street between Gregg Avenue and Woolsey Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 1.28 acres with six lots proposed. Bunch: Good morning, welcome to the May 2, 2002 meeting of the Subdivision Committee of the Planning Commission. We have six items on the agenda today. The first item is a Preliminary Plat for Ash Acres submitted by Bill Rudasill of WBR Engineering on behalf of Rod Stanley for property located south of Ash Street between Gregg Avenue and Woolsey Avenue. Sara, is this yours? Will you tell us some more about it? Edwards: This is a Planned Unit Development, the proposal is for six lots, a private street is being provided that ends in a cul-de-sac for emergency and sanitation vehicles. Since you last saw this they have added access to the tandem lot behind. This property is surrounded by R-1 zoning. There is currently 40% of the site in existing tree canopy and the applicant is proposing to preserve 23% of the site. The requirement in an R-1 zone is 25%. We are recommending this item be tabled. There are six conditions to discuss. We are recommending that this development meet the tree protection preservation ordinance, which requires that 25% of the site be preserved in existing tree canopy. The tree preservation area shall be clearly shown on the plat. Planning Commission shall specifically grant a density bonus pursuant to §166.06. This property is 1.26 acres and is zoned R-1, therefore there are five units allowed by right and the applicant is requesting a total of six units for a density bonus of one unit. Approval shall be subject to Planning Commission approval of a conditional use allowing for a tandem lot. The property owned by Joseph Kilgore to the south is being granted an access easement to his property. Until recently he owned property all the way to Ash but sold it to the developer of the subdivision, which created the need for a tandem lot approval. The cul- de-sac area shall be included as part of the common area and shall have access to tract two and the private drive shall be constructed to public street standards. All the other conditions are standard. Bunch: Other staff reports? Engineering? Petrie: Well, I know we've got some new Commissioners at Subdivision, a couple of Subdivisions ago the Engineering Division recommended it be tabled due to some drainage concerns. Unfortunately, I just received the drainage report this morning at 8:00 so obviously I have not had a chance to look at this in any way. I just need some more time. The next Subdivision I will be able to have a full report to you. Schuldt: Parks and Recreation, our requirements are listed in the standard conditions of approval. They are paying parks fees instead of land. Subdivision Committee May 2, 2002 Page 3 Bunch: Trails? Hatfield: No comment. Conklin: If you refer to page 3 of this first staff report, I want to make sure the Subdivision Committee is aware of findings that have to be made in order to be approved as P.U.D. under § 166.06 (a) Purpose, to be approved as a P.U.D. you must comply with the provisions of the section and must achieve all of the following purposes. 1) More efficient use of land. 2) More efficient use of public facilities. 3) More usable open space through structure grouping and other design techniques. 4) Preservation of appropriate natural or physical features. I bring this up because this is a Planned Unit Development, it is zoned R-1. They are asking for a density bonus and we do need to take a look at these purposes and findings that have to be made. One thing that concerns me is that they are not meeting the minimum percent tree canopy under the tree ordinance, but at the same time we are allowing grouping of structures and a private street. Part of the issue came from I guess the detention pond going into the tree canopy area, which is reducing the canopy. That is something that I think the Commission should discuss also. Marr: Preservation of appropriate natural and physical features, that doesn't seem to me that we would be doing that if we allowed variance on tree preservation. Conklin: That is my concern. Before we started out with 29% and Mr. Rudasill, the Engineer is here, maybe he can explain why that canopy is being reduced down. I think it is because of the detention pond but he may be more able to explain what is going on. Marr: My question would be have we looked at other ways to move things around so that we, I mean because I look at the 25% as a minimum in this case. We are trying to have more usable open space as a result of this P.U.D. Conklin: You would have to ask Mr. Rudasill that question. Rudasill: My question is has it gone up from 20 to 25%? Edwards: The 20% is in the R-2 district and this is in the R-1 district which requires 25%. Rudasill: Ok. We were looking at 20%, that is why it is not there. We can get 25%, that is not a problem. We can provide 25% canopy. Subdivision Committee May 2, 2002 Page 4 Marr: Conklin: Rudasill: Marr: Conklin: Bunch: To the applicant, I am new to the Subdivision Committee, but if we need engineering to have time to review the drainage and the applicant understands that we've got to go back and get tree preservation, why wouldn't we just table this? We are asking you to do that. We are going to table it. I was unaware of that 25%. I guess my question is do we need to go through all of these items to do that or should we just table it and let them work on it? There may be some people from the public audience who would like to address you. While we are here, lets go ahead and take as much comment as we can and look at as many items and that way if there are other deficiencies they can be corrected rather than have it all be in the process of one piece at a time. Now that we have Sidewalks here, Chuck, do you have any comment on Ash Acres? Rutherford: Bill, if you could move your line. Rudasill: Bunch: Hesse: Rudasill: Bunch: Rudasill: Bunch: Marr: Conklin: Ok. Tree and Landscape? No comment. Bill, I never caught the 25% requirement. Behind it is R-2. Bill, do you have any presentation to make at this time? No. Is there anyone from the public who would wish to comment on this item? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Committee for motions, questions. I have a question and then I will make a motion to table it. This email that you just passed out from David and Aim Wilson opposing this development, is it opposing the density? Has anyone talked with them? Are they here today by chance? I am not sure. I have not talked with them. Just a little history of how we got to this point, the applicant asked about rezoning the property. We went out there and looked at it and we indicated that our recommendation Subdivision Committee May 2, 2002 Page 5 Marr: Conklin - Marr: Rudasill: would be for denial of multi -family. They looked at how they could further develop the property and they looked at the Planned Unit Development ordinance and what we are looking at are single-family homes on a private drive, not multi -family so it is a little bit different. The public may look at this as a multi -family development because it is clustered together but we are looking at a private driveway with a total of six single-family homes. Is there a Neighborhood Association that represents this area? There is a newly formed Neighborhood Association and I talked to the individual working on that, which happens to be one of our Commissioners. Has the developer met with this neighborhood? No. I don't know whether he has or not, I've not talked with him in about three weeks. Conklin- It is just newly formed last week I believe. Rudasill: I believe I spoke with Ms. Wilson. Marr: Do you know if they are newly formed around this? The reason I'm asking that is it would be good while we are looking at all of these items to encourage the developer to meet with them prior to coming back. Rudasill: My concern is that they may be concerned about the development that is behind them. There is a big apaitment complex going in there, right adjacent. They cleared out the whole block. Motion: Marr: I move that we table PPL 02-4.00. Shackelford: I will second that. Bunch: I will concur with a couple of other comments. Bill, we are still unclear on the access to the Kilgore property. It says that there shall be access but on the drawing it is still unclear how that access is to be achieved. I guess the detention pond is one of the things that Ron wants to look at in the future. Subdivision Committee May 2, 2002 Page 6 LSP 02-16.00: Lot Split (Mahaffey, pp 489) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Mark Mahaffey for property located at #2 Stonebridge Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 24.87 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 22.79 acres and 2.08 acres. Bunch: The next item on the agenda is LSP 02-16.00 submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Mark Mahaffey for property located at #2 Stonebridge Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 24.87 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 22.79 acres and 2.08 acres. Sara, can you tell us about this one? Edwards: This property is off of Stonebridge Road. It is zoned R-1. There is an existing house on tract B being split off from the rest of the property. They have met all of our ordinance requirements and we are recommending approval at the Subdivision Committee level. There are no conditions to address or discuss and there are four standard conditions. Bunch: Staff reports? Petrie: No comment. Bunch: Eric? Schuldt: No comment. Bunch: Chuck? Rutherford: Sidewalks are not required for lot splits. However, they will be required at the time of development. Bunch: Kim? Hesse: No comment. Bunch: Trails? Hatfield: No comment. Bunch: Is the applicant present? Jorgensen: We are here. Bunch: Do you have anything to tell us about this one Dave? Jorgensen: I am just here to answer questions. I think it is fairly simple. Subdivision Committee May 2, 2002 Page 7 Bunch: Lowry: Jorgensen: Bunch: Lowry: Bunch: Lowry: Bunch: Motion: Marr: Shackelford: Bunch: We will take public comment at this time. Is there anyone who would wish to address this issue? Are they looking to develop, put a subdivision in there or is this just a personal thing? This is a personal deal. They are selling the house and building another house on the other side of it. When you speak or make comment could you please identify yourself for the record? Beth Lowry. Thank you. Does that answer your questions? Yes. Ok, is there anyone else? I will bring it back to the Committee for motions, comments or questions. I will move that we approve LSP 02-16.00 subject to the four standard conditions. I will second. I will concur Thank you Dave. Subdivision Committee May 2, 2002 Page 8 PPL 02-2.00: Preliminary Plat (Clabber Creek Place, pp 322) was submitted by Mike Bender of Northstar Engineering Consultants, Inc. on behalf of Mathias Properties for property located north of Mount Comfort Road and west of Rupple Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 36.35 acres with 109 lots proposed. Bunch: The next item on the agenda is PPL 02-2.00, Clabber Creek Place submitted by Mike Bender of Northstar Engineering Consultants, Inc. on behalf of Mathias Properties for property located north of Mount Comfort Road and west of Rupple Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 36.35 acres with 109 lots proposed. Sara, can you tell us about this one? Edwards: This property is located north of Holt Middle School. As part of this preliminary plat Rupple Road will be extended to the north. Rupple is a minor arterial on the Master Street Plan with 90' of right-of-way required. Currently there is 8.94% of the site in tree canopy. The applicant is proposing to preserve 5.34% of the site. The required preservation in R-1 is 25%. They are proposing to mitigate by contribution to the tree fund and the contribution amount will be determined prior to Planning Commission. Conditions to discuss are that the Traffic Superintendent must approve the sight distance for the intersection of Cattail and Mount Comfort. I spoke to him yesterday and he is meeting with the developer on site to judge the sight distance. He does think that we can get it worked out so that there will be adequate sight distance on that intersection. The access easement between lots 6 and 7 shall be labeled as a public access easement. The reason for that is that is giving us access to our parkland property and we want to make sure the public has a right to use that. Access shall be prohibited from Mount Comfort and Rupple Road and that is so that the lots along that will not have driveways on that arterial street. The right-of-way for Waterway Drive shall be dimensioned from centerline and shall be extended to the west property line. That is so that we don't have a left out strip of property there that will prohibit the property to the west from having access to that street. Park land shall be included in this subdivision and labeled as a lot in the subdivision. Planning Commission determination of offsite assessment for improvements to Rupple Road bridge. Staff recommends an assessment in the amount of $19,740 and we would ask that you look at the attached memo from Ron Petrie, our staff engineer. Planning Commission determination of offsite improvements to Mount Comfort Road. Staff recommends that the street be widened to 18' from centerline. Number eight, Planning Commission determination of an offsite assessment for improvements to Rupple Road. Staff is recommending in place of an assessment that Rupple Road be constructed as a 36' wide street when the requirement is for a 28' wide street. The other requirements are standard conditions of approval. Subdivision Committee May 2, 2002 Page 9 Bunch: Other staff reports? Hatfield: I am Steve Hatfield with the Parks Division. I have several comments that we had addressed at Technical Plat Review and I am not seeing them on the plan and so I just want to go over that and make sure. We had discussed that the wetlands should be designated on the plan. Ingles: My name is Jason Ingles with Northstar Engineering representing the developer. We have, EGIS has met out on the field and they have determined what that is and we'll get that on the drawing. There is about 900 sq.ft. of wetlands in the park area that we designated as park area right now. Conklin: Can you point it out on this drawing for us? Ingles: I have this drawing to point it out. We just got that in in the last couple of days. Conklin- I think what Steve is asking is to have it shown on the Preliminary Plat. Ingles: That is right in this area right here right? Conklin: Ok, can you see that Steve? Hatfield: I just need that area shaded there. That bisects the park property. A couple of other issues, I noticed on sheet five of five, you are showing the easement going between lots 7 and 8 and not 6 and 7. Ingles: Between 6 and 7 there is the sanitary sewer and force main. Hatfield: There was one to be labeled as public access to get into the park property. I thought that was going to be in conjunction with the sewer easement. Ingles: We had an additional easement over there because we got a comment from the tech review that said that we couldn't use the same easement for two different things like sanitary sewer and storm sewer so we just moved our storm and access easement over between lots 7 and 8. Hatfield: I may not be seeing that correctly but I mean if we were accessing between 7 and 8 then we were going right into your detention site. I don't see how I can access the park through that easement. The lift station is right there. Petrie: If I may clarify, just to make sure they understand this requirement. It is ok to have the access and this utility easement in the same but drainage Subdivision Committee May 2, 2002 Page 10 and the utility easement we have to have separated. Plus, you need an access into that lift station area. Ingles: It looks like we can swap that. We will move the 20' easement from the storm over to the sewer and call that the access easement as well. Hatfield: Ok. We had also requested the park land dedication property to be shown adjacent to lot one, continue that property all the way to the street right-of- way and I am not quite sure if that dashed line is the end of the park property. We had requested that it continue to the right-of-way line of Rupple Road directly behind lot one. Ingles: Ok, you are right, that hasn't been done. We can do that. Hatfield: Also, I don't have a scale with me today but we had requested a minimum of 30' from your discharge facility at the end of your detention site, a minimum of 30' to the floodway. It looks like that may be 30'. Has that been adjusted? Ingles: I think that it has been adjusted. I am pretty sure that is taken care of. Hatfield: At that same area we had requested that you show the 50 linear feet of pipe going underneath the corridor. Ingles: That hasn't been put on there but we can do that. Hatfield: Those are all the comments that I have. Bunch: Eric, do you have any comments? Schuldt: Steve has said them for us. Conklin: Since we know now where the wetlands are located and you have your detention pond and outlet structure in them is the idea that you are going to mitigate those wetlands? Ingles: Right. What is happening now is EGIS is preparing the report to go to the Corp., as soon as we get that we will submit to the Corp. If they choose to mitigate this, since it is such a small amount they may not, but if they choose to mitigate we will provide a mitigation plan and what we will basically end up doing is the dirt that we take out of the detention pond we will take and stock pile and put back into the detention pond. Conklin: What quality of wetlands are these? Ingles: I don't know at this time. Subdivision Committee May 2, 2002 Page 11 Conklin- The Corp. has not officially accepted the delineation yet? Ingles I don't think so. Petrie: I would like to make a request, since we are just finding that out that as part of the mitigation plan that this area in the park where the trail is going to be, that can be part of your mitigation plan so we won't have to double those efforts. The trail corridor, if they can be part of your mitigation plan so that we are not having to go back for that very small strip. Ingles: Ok. Bunch: Are there any other comments from Engineering? Petrie: Yes Sir. To start, there are several places on easements that probably need to looked at and addressed. I just want to make sure it is clear, we need easements 10' from the water and sewer lines. There are a few places like to the west of lots 72 and 73, along the south side of Creekside Drive where there are some problems with that easement width from the location of the water and sewer. That is not a critical comment but it needs to be addressed before we see a final plat down the road. We had requested that the sewer be extended to the south subdivision line on Rupple Road. I had several comments at Plat Review about the lift station. I am not going to repeat all of those, I just want to make sure that those comments are conditions because there is money. There are charges like a $4,300 for the SCATA system on the lift station. All of those items I had at Plat Review I just want to make part of the record. You should have in the packet a memo from me about this assessment. I don't know if you guys want to spend a few minutes explaining this. There are some gyrations on how these numbers were derived. First, we had a city construction project of Rupple Road that went through the school, to the school, past the school, to this south property line. That is where the asphalt stopped. There was an original agreement and we were extending Rupple Road down to an entrance into Serenity Place, which is no longer a subdivision but it was approved and there were agreements on the table as part of the rezoning. They went bankrupt and we can no longer enforce those agreements, just to give you a little bit of the history. Part of Rupple Road was constructed across this property. The street's subgrade was installed through a great portion of this so we have had some issues that we are trying to deal with through these assessments. The first one that I've got listed on the memo is the Rupple Road from Mount Comfort Road to this south property line that was built. We are looking at traffic numbers, we had a standard rational nexus calculation that we typically do on traffic and came up with the price of $19,305.58. What was shown originally on the plans was Rupple Road on this site being 36' wide. Typically the developer is Subdivision Committee May 2, 2002 Page 12 responsible for 28' and the City, if it chooses to cost share will widen it to 36'. There is a price tag of that widening that has been estimated to be $85,000, that would be the City's cost. From that number, from taking all of the assessments and subtracting them out we can show that it is pretty much a wash when they are done with this thing. The $85,000 will be a City cost. They show a portion of Rupple Road not to be constructed on the north end and Staff agrees with that because you are coming up on a bridge and you've got embankments to worry about. A lot of things would have to be designed elevation wise. We wanted to make sure that they paid for a 28' wide street to the north property line so that is the next thing on this memo, the $39,600. That is 180' of 28' wide street. Next, we had a request from the sidewalk division to make the sidewalk on the west side of Rupple a trail, which is what is currently out there along the school to Mount Comfort Road. That price tag is $10,980. I have listed the offsite Rupple Road assessment that I discussed a minute ago, $19,305 and then also, the cost to place the subgrade material on the site that exists today, that is a charge of $15,389. If my math is correct, that comes out to be $85,275. It is pretty much a wash, City cost and their cost. That is what we are recommending. That the developer go ahead and install a 36' wide street and a trail on the west side. That is our recommendation. Also, I made the rational nexus calculations for the bridge and the assessment on the bridge of $19,740. That's all I have. Conklin: We will have time between now and Planning Commission there is time to review the formulas and calculations. It is a little complicated because of the past agreements made by the developer who went bankrupt and the costs the City incurred building Rupple Road and putting subbase and base in up on this project actually. Shackelford: Ron, has the developer seen this proposal, the math as you have done it? Petrie: Probably not. Ingles: No, I don't think he has. Shackelford: So we don't have any input from the developer on that. Ok, thank you. Bunch: Ron, what about offsite improvements to Mount Comfort Road, item number seven of the conditions of approval. Do we have some information on that when we get to Planning Commission? Petrie: I did not get that because I didn't have the information existing with the streets and I didn't provide calculations. I can do that if you wish or if the developer's engineer wants to provide their own I think they can do that. Our recommendation is typically if you have an unimproved street adjacent to the site is to widen it, put in curb and gutter. We are in this Subdivision Committee May 2, 2002 Page 13 curb situation so if we widen it out to 18' that is going to help with sight distance and will almost provide a turning lane to get into the development. Shackelford: What is the size of the property that is on Mount Comfort Road? How big of an area are you talking about widening? Petrie: It is about 250' long. Shackelford: Ok, thank you. Marr: Historically, that is something that we've required, that is nothing new. Petrie: Right, and especially for a project this size. Typically the Engineering Division, we just make the request to widen the road. We do not do the rational nexus calculations for a large subdivision like that, it is just typically what we recommend. Bunch: So that would be condition seven revised just to say widen that. Planning Commission will determine whether or not it needs to be done. Petrie: Right. Bunch: Is there any other engineering? Petrie: Just a few more. If they could clarify in the drainage report, the summaries. I am having difficulty with why these numbers are what they are and I just haven't had time to try to find the mistake. I think there are some typos here in this summary and I can get with you later if you wish. Ingles: We can check that and bring them back. Petrie: I think that is it. Bunch: Tree and Landscape? Hesse: It was hard to get this information on the plan in time for today. I am passing this out for you to show you where a lot of tree loss will occur. If you look at relocating the detention pond I think we would be more damage because this is the shortest distance to the creek. If we try to move it off in this area we may be affecting the greatest part of this area with the creek. I wouldn't recommend that. We will lose trees somewhere and I think that this would be better than that. If there are some slight discrepancies I see, I actually found an additional, if you go through this land you have got 4,000 sq.ft. more preserved trees. There are a few slight things that we want to look at between now and Planning Subdivision Committee May 2, 2002 Page 14 Marr: Hesse: Conklin: Hesse: Bunch: Rutherford: Bunch: Rutherford: Bunch: Ingles: Commission if that is alright with you guys to figure out the exact location. There are a couple of trees in question, we are not sure if they are alive, they are actually counted as part of the square footage. They are very large trees. They haven't leafed out yet but we're waiting to see. Who is involved in designating the health of these trees? They were mainly. I have been out at the site with them once and I've been out by myself two other times. Actually, a couple of these actually need to be downgraded in priority because they are in poor condition. This area has been innovated as pretty wet and I think that is part of the reason why some of the oaks are not doing well. There are a lot of Ash out there that are fine. On 27 and 26 I think they are showing as mid level. Obviously, it is real hard though to take out the whole existing canopy and get their 20% allowed, that would certainly make it lower in that spot. That is going to make a big difference on the mitigation. Right now their mitigation is high but I think that is going to change when we look at it. I think there will be some design changes that will help it. What I am saying is I think we can work this out by Planning Commission. We have to go to the site one more time. Just for the record, your recommendation is to remove trees, to allow the tree removal below the minimum percent canopy and mitigation? Yes. Thank you. Chuck? Just a couple of comments. On sheet two right in the middle of the page, over on Rupple Road, the west side we are requesting a sidewalk on the west side and a 6' sidewalk on the east side of Rupple Road. Then one other comment that I would have would be on all the access ramps, a 24" strip of detectable warning, known as truncated dome should be installed at the bottom of the curb ramp to indicate the transition from sidewalk to curb. That is a new ADA requirement as of August. This coming August or last August? Last August. Are there any other staff comments? Are there any comments at this time from the developer's representatives or any presentation? No. Subdivision Committee May 2, 2002 Page 15 Bunch: Would anyone from the public wish to make comment? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Committee. Tim, can we get all this done in time, all these changes done in time to stay on the same cycle or does it need to be delayed? Ingles: We delayed this project several times. We are going to do all that we can to get it all done to stay on this cycle. Edwards: Revisions are due on Monday at 10:00 a.m. Marr: I just really want to challenge you on the feasibility of that. We don't have all the wetlands yet designated. We have a plan that hasn't even been presented yet from my understanding. Is that right, EGIS hasn't... Ingles: Well, EGIS came up with their person report and we have submitted that, we haven't submitted to the Corp. yet. Like I said before, the Corp., since it is such a small area, may choose not to even mitigate, we don't know at this point. Marr: What if that takes a week and a half or two weeks to do? Petrie: I think that the size of the wetlands and its location, if for some reason they could not mitigate or just have a nationwide permit to do away with it, they would just slide the detention pond down and it would be a pretty minor change. The wetlands, as shown to me, are off the lots, it is just that one corner that a small sliver crosses the park and the very comer of that detention pond. I believe that it is just paperwork that is typically done at a later stage anyway unless it is a very large wetlands that would affect the whole subdivision. Hatfield: My only addition is that it is a good idea that we look at it because it actually does dissect the park property completely and this is the first that I've seen of it. I think we would like to be sure that we could actually cross that in a cost effective manner. Marr: That is my point. It looks like to me that it is a lot of work to accomplish. Conklin: I understand your concerns. We do provide in writing at Technical Plat Review the information that we need on our plats. Sometimes it doesn't get on there and Steve went through a list of things that he wanted shown and other staff have. It is just a matter of how much information needs to be added and if you are comfortable enough to forward it on without having it on the plan. Subdivision Committee May 2, 2002 Page 16 Marr: Ingles: Shackelford: Petrie: Shackelford: Conklin: Marr: Petrie: One other question on your tree preservation, the designation of your health. You did that, did you hire an arborist to do that or how did you come up with the actual health when you reviewed that? We used a landscape book basically and the help of Kim Hesse to determine the health of those trees. Ron, obviously I am not smart enough to be an engineer and I am having a little difficulty following your mathematics. If we could do two things, simplify this as much as possible prior to Planning Commission on those calculations, where we are in this subdivision in relation to the size of the road that we built and we're trying to match up to a road that is a little bit larger than what we normally would require. Also, I would like to make sure that we get that information to the developer as soon as possible so that he has an opportunity to review and have input on that and is not surprised by that at Planning Commission. What is the first thing you mentioned? I am sorry. Just, if you could, just clarify as much as possible the differences in this plan, the different size road required over what is normally required and the mathematics in which you calculated the fees and the credit to the developer. We always allow the developer to look at our calculations and if they would like to propose a different methodology to the Commission to consider we always are willing to let them do that and work with staff. It does basically, we are calculating an impact fee and we are trying to make sure that we are calculating that fairly and that is why you see credits being given based on the work they are doing in these calculations. I guess I'm still not sure, maybe I just don't understand at all, and I will get with you outside with this, but the whole history issue with what the agreements were on the front end. What are we losing, or what are we gaining, or are we still the same as a result of this? What I can tell you is that we have taken this to Kit Williams to get a legal opinion on whether we can enforce any of that original agreement and he sent us a memo, and I can get you a copy of whatever you need, that there is no way that we can enforce those original requirements. Those requirements were with the rezoning of the entire piece of property, not just this portion of it, but the entire large 500 acres, or something like that, maybe 300 acres, a very large piece of property. That was agreements made with the City Council where it all came to be. Subdivision Committee May 2, 2002 Page 17 Conklin: With regard to tax payers' money being used to build the road, part of that agreement was that each lot was going to pay a certain fee to help reimburse the City back for building Rupple Road up to this area and as we all know, it didn't happen and the school needed a road so the City of Fayetteville taxpayers built the road. The school district had to build a waterline because the development never went in so the school district was out money. It was a mess. Petrie: But, knowing what I was told by Kit Williams, we basically just scrapped that idea and just went with this taking it as though nothing happened. Although, you would never see an assessment on a road that was already built so that is something that is not typically recommended. Marr: And the developer has not seen that yet so we don't know their reaction. Shackelford: And that is my point. Petrie: We can get you all of that. Marr: I just think it would be good to have some of the history, some of the legal advice from our City Attorney's office so that we would have that in our packet. I agree with the approach we are taking but the other thing is I want to make sure that whatever we have done, we haven't lost out on something like we are still requiring the same standard we would've had it been approved, even though the dollar amount, that assessment may be different. Petrie: Just to make it clear, this developer is in no way related or business partners with the original developer. Marr: That was my next question. There is no financial connection to the prior bankrupt developer? Petrie: That is my understanding and they are checking their heads yes. Bunch: The question we need to resolve here is whether or not to forward this to Planning Commission at this time or do we feel that there are enough changes that it needs a second review by the Subdivision Committee. Marr: I am going to defer to y'all that do this every two weeks but to me it seems like the developer hasn't seen an $85,000 charge, has had no discussion with the City on that yet, we've got wetland issues, we've got things that were asked for at Technical Plat Review that weren't done before it got here that we have three business days to do. They think they can do it, but we didn't do it between Technical Plat Review and Subdivision and we've got new information coming up. Subdivision Committee May 2, 2002 Page 18 Shackelford: I am also not a normal member of this Committee and am not sure what process, or how quickly we can go through this process but I will temper that with I hate to ever table anything and I try to keep developments moving forward through the normal process so if I am hearing staff correctly, the wetlands is a pretty small issue that could be a paperwork issue going forward. Landscape, Kim is comfortable with making the changes she needs to going forward. Marr: Can I ask Kim a question? You said that you think that might change, that would change the mitigation, is it reasonable that you are going to be able to get back with the developer and they are going to have someone to be able to do that in the next two and a half business days? Hesse: Yes, well I will go out there today. Bunch: Another thing is that it does not have to be on the very same cycle. They can throw in an extra cycle on there to get all the pieces completed. The question that we need to answer is whether to forward it to the full Planning Commission or to bring it back here. Conklin: That is correct, and that is a good point. Bunch: It could be two weeks plus three days or whatever, but the question is are there substantial enough changes that you feel that we should bring it back or should we forward it? Steve, you are pretty straight forward, is it a matter of physically making the changes to the drawing. Ray: Hesse: I am Curtis Ray with Mathias Properties. If there is any way that we could possibly get this presented to the Planning Commission for the next time we would really like to do that. We have been removed from the agenda a couple of times already. That may have been partly our fault but we are really needing to push with this. We are coming into the time of year when we need to be working on this if we are going to develop it. We have asked for these calculations before. We have an idea of where we are headed with this so we just need to be able to sit down and look at that. It is not going to take that long of a time. If there is any way that we could go ahead and proceed with this we would want that. Do I understand this? To get the final plat reviewed, Tim, on streets and things like that, that does not have to go back through the Planning Commission on the next meeting does it? The total number of mitigation we really define that at Final Plat. That number is very flexible. I think the most important thing is that the design is as advantageous for preservation as we can and I think we have done quite a bit to try to get to that and I think some of the final design changes Subdivision Committee May 2, 2002 Page 19 Conklin: Hesse: Motion: Shackelford: Bunch: Shackelford: Marr: Bunch: Marr: Hesse: Man: are typically done through the engineering review process after Planning Commission when we really get down to fine details of preservation. The biggest thing probably is getting the number to you since you are approving that. The Planning Commission approves a tree preservation plan so whatever is approved is what you are allowing them to remove and save. The percentage number and square footage numbers are what you would be voting on. I think we've done a pretty good job explaining to the applicant the changes that we anticipate seeing on this plat. I think that we have defined the areas that we want to see addressed between now and Planning Commission and in an effort to keep this project moving forward, I will make a motion that we go ahead and recommend PPL 02-2.00 to the full Planning Commission. We don't necessarily make a recommendation, we just forward it. Ok, we'll forward it to the full Planning Commission. I will second it with the condition that I don't want to be doing Subdivision work at Planning Commission so we need to have this stuff done and on these plans. I will concur. Most of the changes that we see here is a question of whether or not they can get done in three days, but they are not so grand of nature that by the time that it gets to the full Planning Commission if all these changes are made then we should not be doing Subdivision work at Planning Commission so I feel comfortable with forwarding this. I will table it in a second if it gets there and it is not done. If any three of you or the Planning Commission want to go look at these trees, you are not going to get there in the trolley but I will be happy to take you up there in the truck. Without walking or in a truck you are not going to get there but if you would like to go out there I will be happy to take you. I still struggle with this whole thing of how these things get designated as fair, poor, or medium grade and that we take it out. I will talk with you about that outside later. Subdivision Committee May 2, 2002 Page 20 Bunch: Thanks guys and good luck. Subdivision Committee May 2, 2002 Page 21 FPL 02-6.00: (Yorktowne Square, Phase III, pp 214) was submitted by Mel Milholland of Milholland Company on behalf of Peggy Bishop Irrevocable Trust for property located north of Stubblefield Road, between Yorktowne Square, Phase I and Brookhaven Subdivision. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 14.12 acres with thirty lots proposed. Bunch: The next item on the agenda is FPL 02-6.00 for Yorktowne Square, Phase III, submitted by Mel Milholland of Milholland Company on behalf of Peggy Bishop Irrevocable Trust for property located north of Stubblefield Road, between Yorktowne Square, Phase I and Brookhaven Subdivision. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 14.12 acres with thirty lots proposed. Sara? Edwards: The Preliminary Plat for this was approved on May 8, 2000 subject to a note on the plat that lot 93 not be allowed to split in the future and that is on the plat. We did grant a waiver for Devanshire Place to end in a cul- de-sac that was longer than 500'. They basically addressed all the conditions that staff had at Plat Review, therefore, we do not have any conditions to discuss and are recommending that this be forwarded to the full Planning Commission. Bunch: Are there any other staff comments? Ron? Petrie: No comment. Schuldt: I have just a clarification. I have a note from Kim Rogers, our Park Operations Coordinator, there are 29 lots with one existing, is that correct? Milholland: Yes, lot 93 was a preexisting residence and not part of the development and on a separate description and the Planning Commission, when we went through the Preliminary Plat, that was not part of the Preliminary Part as part of the subdivision but they asked us to include it with this note number two, which she just spoke of, and so the developer agreed to do that. Schuldt: Ok, then underneath the standard conditions of approval, I think they have already paid their park fees, the payment of park fees is 29 units at $470, for a total of $13,630. Conklin: What I am trying to do with lot 93 is we are getting caught with people subdividing property and claiming these remnant pieces, out parcels and to include this so we can address our subdivision regulations because that Stratford Drive was intended to extend to the north. That decision was made not to do that and that is why there is a condition not to split 93 any further. Subdivision Committee May 2, 2002 Page 22 Schuldt: Conklin: Bunch: Rutherford: Edwards: Rutherford: Milholland: Bunch: Conklin: Milholland: Bunch: We don't need to charge them a park fee though. No, you don't have to charge them a park fee, but I am just trying to explain why 93 is in there. Chuck with sidewalks? Everything is taken care of as far as sidewalks, they have a table in there correctly, and it is all taken care of. They have the sidewalks in already? Sidewalks are installed already and they have made a walk through. There is only one access ramp that is broken at the present time and we are in contact with the utility company that broke that and they are going to repair that. There is proof that they paid the utility company to put the lights in. Does anyone have any comments on tree and landscape since Kim isn't here? Did she forward any with you? No. At Preliminary Plat the easement was moved to save some trees, I think that was over by lots 83 and 84. That was done at the preliminary stage. That is on 83,84, and 85. The easement and utilities are not on the backside of the lot, there are trees back down in there so that was determined by Kim, we worked with her on doing that. Ron, all the drainage issues, were they resolved? It seems like my memory is a little fuzzy, but when this thing came through with Preliminary Plat there were some unresolved issues with adjacent property owners. Milholland: At that northeast corner, lot 15 on Brookhaven and that issue was resolved. Petrie: Bunch: That was a part of the original conditions of approval on the Preliminary Plat. I have talked to that gentleman several times and talked to him recently just to verify that he is satisfied with what was done and he is. He is very appreciative. At this time we will take public comment, is there anyone from the public that would wish to address this project? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Committee. Tim, a question just procedurally, could you just for the Subdivision Committee May 2, 2002 Page 23 record and since we have two people sitting in on this Committee who normally aren't here, tell us about how we are sending all Final Plats forward? Conklin- Sure. There is a discrepancy in the bylaws and the ordinance. The bylaws say that it can be approved at Subdivision Committee, the ordinance says Planning Commission. Therefore, I think the ordinance is a higher level of law and of course it needs to be forwarded to the Planning Commission for approval. Also, under state law, acceptance of streets has to be made by City Council so we bring just the street acceptance to the City Council now also after researching other cities. We are just trying to keep our process in line with the laws of the city and the state. Bunch: Thanks. Motion: Marr: I will move that we forward FPL 02-6.00 to the Planning Commission. Shackelford: I will second. Bunch: I will concur. Subdivision Committee May 2, 2002 Page 24 LSD 02-14.00: Large Scale Development (Fayetteville School District, pp 443) was submitted by Geoffrey Bates of Crafton, Tull, & Associates on behalf of Fayetteville School District for property located at 1124 W. Cleveland Street. The property is zoned P-1, Institutional and contains approximately 5.41 acres with 58 parking spaces proposed. Bunch: The next item is LSD 02-14.00 for the Fayetteville School District submitted by Geoffrey Bates of Crafton, Tull, & Associates on behalf of Fayetteville School District for property located at 1124 W. Cleveland Street. The property is zoned P-1, Institutional and contains approximately 5.41 acres with 58 parking spaces proposed. Planning? Edwards: The Arkansas Highway Department is widening Garland to a Boulevard standard and this is affecting the existing parking situation of Leverett Elementary School. Therefore, the elementary is proposing two new parking lots. One will be located along Garland north of the school and the second will be located along Cleveland. The Cleveland lot is needed because the main entrance to the school is being relocated to the south of the building. We are recommending this be forwarded to the full Planning Commission. The first condition to discuss is Planning Commission approval of a conditional use for parking in addition to that allowed by code. The maximum number of spaces allowed by code is 49 and the proposal is for 58 spaces. 2) Planning Commission and City Council approval of a street vacation. There is existing right-of-way running through this property that must be vacated by the City prior to the issuance of any permit. 3) Nothing related to the school may be located in the R-1 zoning district until approval of a conditional use is granted. There is some R-1 zoning along the west of this property. Right now they are showing that R-1 zoning so the conditional use for that is not required. However, with condition number four we are requesting that they show the future location of the new playground area, which we do believe will overlap into that R-1 area and when they are ready to build that we will require a conditional use. 5) Two bicycle racks are required and shall be added to the plat. 6) A parking lot permit is required prior to any grading or site work beginning. 7) There are five trees required in the 15 foot greenspace along Garland. That is part of our commercial design standards. There are three existing trees being removed by the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department that must be replaced in order to meet this requirement. Therefore, we are requesting that three trees be added to the plat. The other conditions are standard. Bunch: Ron? Petrie: I had asked for some drainage load summaries with my comments at Technical Plat Review. I personally did not receive those. I don't know if they ended up in another division or what happened but if we can get that as soon as possible. Another comment that we discussed at Plat Review is Subdivision Committee May 2, 2002 Page 25 probably getting approval from the downstream property owner. Unless we get some additional information. We are a little concerned, we have the detention to hold back and match predevelopment flows. What we are doing is really changing how the flow is discharged onto the adjacent property so we are concentrating it more at one point so I think we either have to see some additional design work on how it is discharged or bring it down the road after it goes through the detention pond, or we get approval from the adjacent property owner. We may be matching predevelopment flows but at that one point we are not. Bates: Even if we just bring it down to this ditch and then the Highway Department just takes it on down from there? Petrie: If you can get approval from the Highway Depaitment. Bates: So this is Highway Department right of way? Petrie: Yes, it is a state highway. There are many options, I just want to make that a condition that there is some stuff hanging right there that will need to be addressed before we at least approve the construction plan. The last comment, on these detention ponds, it is not a requirement of the drainage manual or ordinances and one thing that we brought up for discussion is do we need any additional fencing around these ponds on an elementary school site? Since it is not part of the ordinance I can give you a recommendation, but I can not tell you that I can require it. Bates: The school told me that they are going to fence off the parking lot so the kids aren't going to be down over here anyway. Conklin: When you pick up your kids they are in the parking lot walking to the cars and a sidewalk is adjacent to it. Marr: I really think it is something that you ought to look at. Bunch: What are we looking at 10' roughly? Petrie: The depth, pretty close, 8' or 9'. Bates: It only has water in it when it rains, I don't know if there are any kids out there when it is raining. Marr: That is the only time they get to stomp in water right? Bates: That is right. Subdivision Committee May 2, 2002 Page 26 Petrie: Conklin - Bates: Marr: It can be used a great part of the year and be made part of the playground, but it just needs to be where if it has got water in it people can not wander into it. Then you have got that 36" concrete pipe. I don't know if the school is going to be opposed to it, they are going to be here at Planning Commission so they might be easier to talk to. Yes, and we can talk to them, I just think they ought to know that. I don't know about the rest of these guys, but I know that we deal with a lot of issues with ponds and things in other developments and this I wouldn't look at as being any different just because of the school system. In fact, I would look at it more so because we are talking about an elementary school. Shackelford: I agree. Petrie: Bunch: Schuldt: Bunch: Hesse: Bunch: Bates: Hesse: Bates: Hesse: Bunch: That is all I have. Eric? No comment. Kim? The only comment is these two trees. Which ones are you pointing to? The ones that the Highway Department are going to remove anyway. It is pretty obvious where the new road will go. I do have a question. If the Highway Department is going to be removing those, why does the school have to replace those? You didn't show them in your parking lot for off street parking lot landscaping there needs to be one more tree right here. They are only required four for off street parking, one every 30' on the front so we would have them here, here, here and here. About the length of twelve spaces or whatever and we have 13 and 14, do we need to have any landscape islands or is that replaced by groupings in another area? Subdivision Committee May 2, 2002 Page 27 Hesse: Bates: Edwards: Bates: Edwards: Marr: Conklin: Hesse: Bunch: Hesse: Marr: Edwards: Conklin: Bates: Edwards: Bates: Edwards: They are spacing out these trees here. There really are supposed to be large trees. One of the things, I hate to ask for a whole island for that one extra space. This is on Garland. I thought the Highway Department was going to put trees all down this anyway. If you could show what they are putting. Well, you never know. Exactly. Aren't these trees a requirement of our parking lot ordinance? Yes, it is our parking lot ordinance. You show your mitigation trees, the only thing that is wrong with that is this tree right here. Kim, are we losing some still even though we are looking at four possible landscape islands so where are we gaining? Are we losing four trees? From the interior, this is the exterior, these three. What is this five number? There are five trees required? There is one required for 30' of frontage and when you figure their frontage and taking out the driveway width as Kim does, it comes to five trees required in that 15' of landscape along the front property line. The other four, I believe she is talking about interior landscaping which is the ones at the base. So along the new proposed right-of-way in front of the parking lot you are supposed to have 15' of landscaping, one tree per 30' and a continuous planting of shrubs. So we are looking at two different ordinances requiring trees? That's right. The interior landscape and the frontage issue. Right. Subdivision Committee May 2, 2002 Page 28 Marr: Conklin: Hesse: Marr: Bunch: Hesse: Bunch: Hesse: Bunch: Bates: Conklin: Bates: Conklin: Bates: Conklin: Bates: Conklin: These three here are the ones for exterior and these four are for interior space and that is one per 12 is that what you said? Yes, one per twelve spaces. There is a tree lawn. It is one per fifteen if they have a treelawn and an easement. If you read the ordinance, the whole idea is to get the canopy over the placement and when you have a treelawn you have more space for trees to grow so you can use larger trees. The idea is to use large trees. Although they've got plenty of room, we will be able to require large shade trees. As long as we're not going to get Bradford Pears. So are we going to have something Yes. Ok, good. th some canopy to it? The idea is to shade 50% of the pavement. They are really not showing the true mature size on that. I would like to mention Jeff that we have one tree that we are looking at on the grading that is shown as preserved. When this goes maybe we don't need the exact species of tree but some sort of comment reflecting this. We have it on the second street, the hackberries. I just have a couple of questions. With regard to the improvements on Garland, is the Highway Department going to redesign your radius into the drive? That will be their responsibility. Are the planned improvements for the existing Garland right now? You will build those? That is the plan and if the Highway Department goes and tears them out then they will replace them. So you are actually going to pour curb? Yes, because I have no idea when they are going to do Garland so we are going to go ahead and go all the way to the existing road. I just wanted to offer some temporary solution. Subdivision Committee May 2, 2002 Page 29 Bates: The right of way is way back here. Conklin: Yes. Bates: It would be nice and it may be just a waste of money. Conklin- Ok, I am trying to save the school district some money. The second thing I want the Commission to be aware of, we have asked that the Playground be shown, that is the purpose of the conditional use and Jeff, are you working to show the playground on this as a site plan? Bates: They are not sure. They are getting a lot of playground equipment from the city. The City is giving them some playground equipment and they are putting it over there somewhere. Conklin- We do have a conditional use. We are taking the existing playground and making a parking lot. We need a conditional use because we have a playground in an R-1 zoning district. I would like to approve it all together and get it all done. Bates: If I bring a conditional use in today will you get it in on this Planning Commission coming up? Conklin: We missed the advertising I guess. It is important though. The reason why the parking lot is here is because the neighbors on Hall Avenue didn't want the parking lot on Hall Avenue. Marr: Can you go back to this radius entry thing that you were talking about? What I don't understand is if we don't plan for it are we going to lose any of this stuff that we are putting in? Hesse: The landscaping will be stuck way back. We won't lose any landscaping. Bates: We put the landscaping behind the proposed right-of-way. Hesse: The new sidewalk and the new landscaping is right in here. Marr: So we won't lose any of this as a result of this? Hesse: No. Conklin: There is the curb. Shackelford: We will lose some curb though. Subdivision Committee May 2, 2002 Page 30 Marr: Hesse: Conklin: Marr: Conklin - Shackelford: Conklin - Shackelford: Bates: Conklin: Bates: Conklin: Bates: Conklin: Bates: Conklin: Bunch: Rutherford: This widening part is when this comes back to this. When the Highway Department builds this through here this is where the curb will be so they will have to do new radiuses when that is poured. This is the boulevard, there is the new edge of the curb for the new highway and here is the 10' multi -use trail right here and then greenspace. This where the playground is, that is where that R-1 starts? Yes. The school district bought the lots, moved the house and there are some big oak trees in there. So we are going to require them to do the curbing here and then we are going to lose all of that. We are not requiring it. They are going to build it though. I just assumed that is what they would want to do. If they don't have to I am sure that the school would love to save some money. I thought it was a real project and it is really going to happen. Garland? Yes. It is but I don't know when. It just seems silly, it is the taxpayers money paying for all of this to tear out that but why don't you find out what they want to do. I will see what I can do between now and Planning Commission. Normally I am not arguing against improvements. Normally we want improvements but I don't like to drive by things being torn out six months after they are installed. Chuck, are there any comments from Sidewalks? The new sidewalk, Cleveland Street will be part of that construction and they will have to meet the ordinance. Garland Street, that will be part of the new Garland Street improvements, they won't be required to do an improvement along there. Subdivision Committee May 2, 2002 Page 31 Marr: Rutherford: Conklin - Rutherford: Edwards: Bates: Conklin: Bunch: Edwards: Bates: Hesse: Rutherford: Bates: So there won't be a sidewalk in the interim between the road being done and this being done? Again, I think that kind of goes back to what Tim is trying to find out. Coordination of when it is going to happen is key. There is existing sidewalk there now. There is existing sidewalk up to the school itself once you enter that parking area along where the trees are there is a sidewalk there. As part of this there will be two bicycle racks required and he is showing that on the plat. He is showing that you say? It is on the second page. There will be no median cut either so to get into this parking lot you will have to be heading south on Garland to enter. An observation here, normally we look at bicycle racks associated with adults going to businesses and that sort of thing. Since this is a grade school and we have probably an opportunity for quite a few children to be riding bicycles, do we think that two bike racks are enough? I understand that this is based on the ordinance, but we are also in the design stages of designing something for a use where we know there are typically quite a few bicycles. Do they have any others there? I think there are some existing there now. The old style, movable. I would agree with what Mr. Bunch said. This is definitely a place where we want to encourage kids to be able to ride their bicycle. I agree that there is more of a need here. Don't you think it would be more of a middle school than an elementary school? Are there many first, second or third graders riding to school? I wouldn't let my first grader ride a bicycle to school. Conklin: In other cities in other states people ride bikes to school. Subdivision Committee May 2, 2002 Page 32 Marr: This 49 verses 58, normally we see it compared to something when we have more parking requested. Is there any precedent of approving more at a school? Conklin- I am just going off my own personal experience with my kids. In this area, parking is very limited and you have school functions and it seems like, I see cars all over the place. Marr: Conklin - Bates: Marr: Conklin: Bunch: Gatewood: Bates: I don't disagree with you, you know how I feel about parking. I don't know whether or not that is the magic number or not, I think that is what they could fit on that site. That is just what fit. I just want to make sure. One of the things that I think sometimes we hear at the Planning Commission is that when it is the City or a school district things are treated differently. The last thing that I want to do is to have our City Planner say "My child goes to school there and I see it." I think we ought to look at it like we would anybody else or have some data that says that we can support it. See what you can get from the school district on that to help justify the number. Do we have any public comment at this time? Yes. I am Willard Gatewood. I own the lot on Hall Street that is adjacent to the faculty staff asphalt parking lot and the ingress and egress along Hall. There is a tremendous drainage problem already there. There is an underground spring at the corner of Hall and Cleveland that drains into a ditch. There is a pipe that drains Hall into that ditch. All of that goes into a pipe cut diagonally across the 800 Hall Avenue property. It is collapsing. I tried to patch it up, I talked to the City, it is not their problem. I talked to the school district, it is certainly not their problem. In addition to that, when they built the asphalt parking lot, they made no provision for draining any of that water off so everything that comes down that hill goes in the backyard and it is like a pond. Now if there is anymore water that goes in there then we will have a pond and I guess the children can play in it. I haven't heard anything about drainage. There won't be anymore. Everything we are doing is on the north side so it won't be affecting that. Actually, I think their intent is to get rid of that parking lot and that is going to be a playground area. Subdivision Committee May 2, 2002 Page 33 Gatewood: It is still going to drain with it sloped like that unless they are going to do something else. It slopes from the comer, any of the residents that live down there will vouch for this, there is either a leaking water main that has been leaking for at least 32 years, or it is a spring, a wet weather spring or whatever that is underground and then you drain Hall Street into that and you drain that hillside into that and you've got a problem. Bates: Petrie: He is talking about over in this area and we are not doing anything over in that area, that is an existing area. I agree there is probably spring over there because there is a stream going all the time but we're not doing anything. I would have to agree with that assessment. This drainage does not go back to the west, it goes north and will not go off this portion of the property. I don't see this effecting that situation for the better or for the worse. Marr: Is there anything that is going to be on that side that impacts that Hall area? Petrie: We have talked about the playground or something like that. I don't have enough information to even say that. Marr: If that playground comes through then we do it as a conditional use... Conklin: I wanted the playground shown as part of this project. Jeff, I guess you worked hard to show the playground. Bates: I don't know anything about the playground. He just mentioned that the City is giving us some equipment and we are going to put it over in this area. Conklin: I have been pushing to have the playground shown because I think that when you are removing the playground it is obviously going somewhere else and I would like to see it at one time. Can you deliver that message to the school district? Bates: Marr: Petrie: Yes. Certainly if they plan on doing any kind of footing to actually put the equipment on. If they are doing grading on that then it needs to be part of the grading plan and obviously part of the drainage too. Subdivision Committee May 2, 2002 Page 34 Conklin: Bates: Conklin: Marr: Conklin: Marr: Conklin: Shackelford: Petrie: Marr: Bunch: Shackelford: Marr: Bates: I don't want to delay the school. I know the school district wants to get this done this Summer. As soon as school is out. Before school starts, but it is important that we understand that playground and what is happening. I think our message is, if I understand right, if the playground has to come through for a conditional use if they are going to move it into an R-1 area right? That is correct. But in terms of this moving forward, even though we are showing it, it is still going to be two different approval processes. One for this parking lot and one for this conditional use for the playground. It sounds like it. I wish the school would put it all as one and get it over with but you weren't hired to do that. If it does come through as a conditional use, we will still have the opportunity. It will be west where we're talking about where Dr. Gatewood's concern is, we will have a chance to address the drainage at that point? We typically don't see any grading or drainage for a conditional use. I think you would have to make that part of your approval. You can make it a condition if they are going to have basketball courts or some type of paved play area. We are speculating right now because none of us know what it is going to be. But on a conditional use we can attach whatever conditions we deem necessary. Well, common sense says that if they are going to build basketball courts they are going to look at drainage. Well, if this parking lot is taking your play area it is going to go somewhere. This is currently paved parking right in here so they may just build a basketball goal. They may not do anything but sit the equipment on the paved area that is already there. I am just guessing. Subdivision Committee May 2, 2002 Page 35 Marr: I am not going to speculate what they are going to do. Bates: They will be able to tell you exactly what they are going to do. Marr: If they are not going to bring it together they just needs to understand that we will look at it. Conklin- It is a conditional use. There will be a site plan and whatever conditions and safeguards you need to add to that conditional use to make it happen we can do that at the City. Bates: You want to look at all of this at once? Conklin- Yes. Can we postpone it to get it at the same meeting as the conditional use? Bates: I don't know if we want to do that. We could at least get started on this and then do the playground stuff later because I don't want to hold up their parking lot construction for the playground. The issue here is the parking lot. Bunch: Is there any additional public comment? Edwards: I apologize for omitting this in a condition but they are proposing one way aisles that are wider than our 12' requirement and we do need to grant a waiver on that. The reason for that is obviously the bus traffic and the buses turning wide and that is the reason that they are requesting that but I do want to make you aware that that is going to be a condition when it goes to Planning Commission. Also, is there any existing parking on this site that will remain after this project that is not new? When we take our 58 spaces I want to make sure that includes everything because we are granting a conditional use for additional parking, that we are not leaving some extra parking somewhere. Bates: As far as I know, they weren't even going to have this parking lot. It is more of a playground area. That is where they have their basketball goals and all of that stuff now but in order to meet the handicap requirements we had to put these two handicap spaces up the hill. Edwards: Are you going to have a driveway here to get to? Bates: There is an existing drive that is there so we are not going to do is take two handicap spaces in there and put a sign. Marr: Does that make it 60 instead of 58? Subdivision Committee May 2, 2002 Page 36 Bates: I guess it would. Edwards: Ok, then I need you to show the driveway. Bates: Ok. Conklin: We also have to go to City Council on one of the conditions. The City owns street right-of-way right through the middle of this parking lot that will have to be vacated. Bates: We put these handicap spaces here, but if you go out and look at the school, there are stairs going into every door. The school is not handicap equipped. Conklin: Mr. Carr has said that they are accessible up here on Cleveland. Bates: There are stairs up on Cleveland, you would have to build a ramp. Conklin: The spaces are going to be in this parking lot. Bates: That is what we intended but Perry said you have to have some down here too. Bunch: Ok, are there any motions or additional discussion? Motion: Marr: I move that we forward LSD 02-14.00 to the full Planning commission. I just want to make sure that somebody is going to go back and talk to the school district about the fencing of this detention pond area for safety, even though it is not an existing requirement. It will be our concern and we will certainly like somebody to address it. Bates: They are aware of it and I think he is planning on fencing it anyway, I just wasn't exactly sure where the fence is going. Marr: Then just our parking change, and you are going to see if they can show the playground? Conklin: We will have to see the playground as part of the conditional use. It would be nice to see them both at the same time. Bates: Can I have three sheets instead of two? Edwards: Yes. Subdivision Committee May 2, 2002 Page 37 Bunch: Since we see it labeled as conditional use, it could be just put on the drawing conceptually to give us an idea of where it is. Shackelford: I will second that motion. Bunch: I will concur. Subdivision Committee May 2, 2002 Page 38 ADM 02-13.00 Administrative Item (Pack Rat, pp 289) submitted by Chuck Rutherford, Sidewalk Administrator, City of Fayetteville for property located at the SE corner of Gregg and Sunbridge. The request is to put money in escrow instead of constructing the sidewalk along Gregg. Bunch: The final item on our agenda is ADM 02-13.00 for the Pack Rat submitted by Chuck Rutherford, Sidewalk Administrator, City of Fayetteville for property located at the SE corner of Gregg and Sunbridge. The request is to put money in escrow instead of constructing the sidewalk along Gregg. Edwards: Rutherford: Bunch: We do not have a staff report for this but Chuck is here to go over this item for you. As part of the large scale development for the Pack Rat they were required to build a sidewalk for their frontage on Sunbridge and their frontage on Gregg. They have completed probably 2/3 of their sidewalk requirement on Sunbridge and there is no question on that, they are going to finish what is required on Sunbridge. The question is on Gregg Street, there has been a new traffic signal put in there and there have been some improvements along there. However, the curb and gutter only goes a short distance to the south of that intersection. The sidewalk, if it is required along Gregg Street and build it to the 2% above the future curb will create somewhat of a drainage problem in that the road will be lower and the water that needs to get to this drainage back here in the back, the drainage ditch is behind where the sidewalk is shown now so that creates a problem if the sidewalk is constructed now. If you build it to the lower elevation, when that road is improved then that is not desirable either because it is sitting down lower than the way it really should be to drain back out and have a sidewalk where the water does not run with the top of it. On the other hand, if the sidewalk is not built now and this is the reason I'm bring back to get your comments and your approval of whichever way we go with this, if it is shown on here and it is not built and someone along here as a pedestrian is out here on the roadway and gets hurt or whatever, that is not good either because the sidewalk was shown and it wasn't built. According to Jim Beavers it is a high priority of this administration to have Gregg Street improved. Part of that is because of the Washington Regional Hospital that is going to open next fall. From the Highway Department on their priority list, probably as soon as this could be a project would be two years and it could be as long as five years to do a project along Gregg Street so it is kind of a dilemma. Do we collect the money for the sidewalk and have them not build a section on Gregg and do it when the road is improved, the money will be there. Or do we go ahead and have them build the sidewalk now. I don't know if you have a drawing in your packet. We have nothing in our packet Chuck. Subdivision Committee May 2, 2002 Page 39 Rutherford: Marr: Rutherford: Marr: Rutherford: Bunch: Rutherford: Bunch: Rutherford: Bunch: Rutherford: Shackelford: Rutherford: Conklin: The bridge is another obstacle. Here is the sidewalk coming along Gregg Street and this is the way that it is shown to be built. You can see the bridge. This is the bridge right here. There is no sidewalk from here up to the comer of Township and Gregg Street. Isn't there a little trail or something that is off down below there that goes from the very end of the cleaners, you know they walk down below, the road is significantly higher. There probably is. The way it is right now... It is not a City trail, it is like a path people have made as a trail. To get across this creek however, the way everything is positioned now people would have to get out on the road. The dilemma is do we build a sidewalk now? We are at the mercy at the State Highway Department because that is their jurisdiction right? Well, maybe I don't understand your question. Do you mean if the road is improved... Who will be responsible for doing the road improvement and also responsible for the timing? Are you saying that that is the State Highway Department's jurisdiction or the City of Fayetteville? Well, it is the State Highway's jurisdiction but as far as on their priority list, that can be maneuvered through the political pressure of accidents, traffic, new hospital opening, etc. Still, the end result is that it is the State's determination. The City can apply pressure but the City does not make final determination. Yes, and correct me if I'm wrong Ron, but the City can't pick a date three years down the road and say this is when we are going to start this project. Chuck, how did you get to the best case scenario two years and the worst case scenario five years? Is that numbers that you got from the State? I got that from Jim Beavers this morning. The City Administration has asked the Highway Department to make that a priority. Subdivision Committee May 2, 2002 Page 40 Marr: Rutherford: Marr: Conklin - Rutherford: My concern is, and I agree with you because actually the only reason I am familiar with it is having worked at Staffmark a lot of people used to try and walk from our corporate to all the way down to where Arsaga's and The Bagel Company and all that used to be and they were practically being hit on the road several times. Gregg Street definitely needs sidewalks. In terms of the need of a sidewalk, I hate the thought of not having it there. But the other side of it is, is there a five year limit that we can keep these funds? Can we set that limit longer to ensure that sidewalk actually gets built in this place? What does the new ordinance state? Well, the new ordinance, if we apply the new ordinance in this case for collecting the money and keeping this project, it says the money will be spent within one year. However, if we applied it to this project... Conklin- As an offsite improvement or delayed improvement or offsite delayed improvement? Rutherford: Marr: Rutherford: Marr: Rutherford: Shackelford: Hooker: The way typically in the past, since I've been part of the City of Fayetteville, when it comes to building sidewalks on Highway Department Roads, the City can make recommendations on how sidewalks are built but the Highway Department pretty much builds them to their own standard specification. They don't build them to the City of Fayetteville's specification and also, the City of Fayetteville pays for those sidewalks. But, they do in fact build them? They do build them but the City of Fayetteville pays for them. They wouldn't look at this road as an area that they would only do road improvement and not sidewalk? At the present, the Highway Department builds sidewalks as part of their project if the City asks for the sidewalks to be built. If the City does not ask for the sidewalks to be built then they won't build sidewalks as part of their project. Morgan, what is the lot process for the developer and owner? My name is Morgan Hooker and I am the contractor. Scott is perfectly willing to do whatever. He just doesn't want to see money wasted. He doesn't want to put the sidewalk in and see it pulled out in two years. One Subdivision Committee May 2, 2002 Page 41 Marr: Hooker: Marr: Conklin: Hooker: Shackelford: Rutherford: Marr: Conklin: Rutherford: issue is the sidewalk pretty much dead ends at the creek so either you are going to be wading through the creek or going over the bridge, which in my opinion, there is not a more dangerous place to walk in Fayetteville than on that bridge with traffic. There is literally that much. I completely agree with you. There is a significant elevation change from road to where that sidewalk is. It is a hike just to get up the incline to get to the bridge to walk across it. Again, I certainly don't care, I am just trying to do what is best. Scott is perfectly willing to put it in if it is the best thing to do. Have we approved any prior development in that space between, that wooded space in there now? In the past, is there anything sitting on the books like some of these we are finding that was proposed for development already? I am just not aware of any. I think we can hold the money as an option. You give us cash, a bond or a letter of credit and then we can hold it until it is constructed. Scott is perfectly willing to do that. How much money are we talking about, do we have an estimate? It would be $3.00 a square foot with a 6' sidewalk for that length that is shown. Tim, it would not be tied to the twelve month? We could keep it until it is actually built? It says 'The City has the following options if improvements have not been constructed after 270 days.' Prior to that it is talking about large scale developments where the improvements have not been installed and we issue a building permit, which is what we've done. It is built, we issued a building permit and it states that the City can take the money to construct the improvements or hold the money until the developer completes the improvements. After the City Engineer certifies the improvements have been completed the money shall be returned to the developer. It doesn't say anything about any five year period. The five year thing is on the offsite improvement ordinance like we looked at Monday night. The reason I bring this to you is because several of us met out there and looked at this onsite and talked about different ways of doing it and I was asked to make a decision at the time of what could happen and because it went through the Large Scale Development process, I felt that we needed Subdivision Committee May 2, 2002 Page 42 Marr: to bring it back to the Subdivision level for you to look at it and make a determination. Would your recommendation be that if we could have the money in escrow without a time limit, because it is a very high priority sidewalk area, that we not build it now and hold that money as long as we didn't have the twelve month period to lose it or is it you believe we should wait on it period? Conklin: Just to clarify that, what are we going to do with this money? Is Packrat going to build the sidewalk, is the Highway Department going to build the sidewalk? Are we going to give the money to the Highway Department to pay for the sidewalk? Rutherford: I think there are different options there as far as exactly what happens. If the money is collected and the Highway Department does do a road project there then I think that the money should go in to pay for the sidewalk, because the City would be paying for the sidewalk anyway. Conklin. Rutherford: Marr: Rutherford: Conklin: Rutherford: Conklin: Rutherford: Bunch: We would? The City would pay for the all of the sidewalks so it would just be that portion that would be paid for. So it would be their contribution to the City's payment to the State? Yes. Sometimes we pay for the sidewalks. On Garland, which we just looked at, the Highway Department is paying for the sidewalk and we were cost sharing with them to make a trail. Well, on Wedington the City of Fayetteville paid for the sidewalks on Wedington. Ok, most likely we would be paying for a sidewalk on a highway project. On 265 the City was originally paying for the sidewalks and then the Highway Department was asked to look at the P21 money and so the City paid the 20% plus engineering costs, which amounted to about $53,000 for the sidewalks on the 265 project. Tim, what action are we looking for the Committee to take today? Can we approve this at this level or does it need to go forward to the full Planning Commiss ion? Subdivision Committee May 2, 2002 Page 43 Conklin: Hooker: Conklin: Edwards: Shackelford: Conklin: Shackelford: Hooker: Shackelford: Rutherford: I think you can approve it at this level and direct that money be deposited. Do you know whether he wants to do a letter of credit or cash or bond? I am not sure. Ok, whatever instrument is used and that we hold that money until the improvement. I guess if the improvement doesn't happen then we require it to be built. I would like to go on record against a bond because that is difficult to draw, it is intended to guarantee but it is difficult to draw for cash when we know we are going to do it and this is something that we know we are going to do and that is not the purpose of the bond. It is not for cash that you know you are going to get. With the letter of credit, I would be willing to take that. It is just going to be a renewal thing that we are going to have to keep on top of and renew. He is going to have to pay fees every year when that renews. Yes, that is the point that I was going to make. Depending upon the size of the money, a letter of credit could be probably more economically feasible for the developer and the property owner and I think you can do those for two year windows and not just one so that would cut down on that. Ok, we haven't seen the two year ones. I think we could do that. I was just guessing, we are looking at $3,600 or $4,000. My take on it is even if we built the sidewalk right now we are not going to be able to solve the safety issues because I am in complete agreement with what everybody else is saying. The real safety issue is at the bridge and I hate to see the effort and the money be spent on this to just to improve a very small part of the problem. I would be more inclined to escrow the money and do it right and hopefully that will happen fairly quickly. I think the safety issue kind of works both ways as far as looking at it. The pedestrian is going southbound from Sunbridge and the sidewalk is built now, they have a sidewalk to walk on up to that point, however they have to get up on the bridge. If they are coming north bound and the sidewalk is built now, as soon as they cross that bridge they have a sidewalk to access to. If the sidewalk is not built they have to go all the way down to Sunbridge to access the sidewalk. Subdivision Committee May 2, 2002 Page 44 Bunch: Rutherford: Hooker: Rutherford: Hooker: Conklin: Rutherford: Conklin: Hooker: Bunch: Hooker: It looks like a good place for a community organization to put in a temporary bridge. I think he is willing to do this if you do decide to accept the money and build on Gregg Street, I would request that they go ahead and build the sidewalk up to the access ramp on Sunbridge where the driveway is that goes into Pack Rat, where the sidewalk goes a little way up there and then ends, I would like to see the sidewalk go ahead and be finished now because there is curb and gutter there, there is an access ramp now on the corner of Gregg and Sunbridge, if this is what they choose to do. Ok, you are saying to go ahead and build that portion of it even if we put that in escrow. Exactly. Go ahead and build the Sunbridge portion. Ok, I think he planned on doing that. That is what I was trying to figure out. How the City of Fayetteville is putting traffic signals in and widening that street right there, are we really going to be tearing those out when they widen Gregg Street. Ron and I were just having that discussion and Ron doesn't believe that is the case so we should be able to get the sidewalk in while the road is being widened. That part is all improved. One of the reasons was this issue on the sidewalk to make the complete turn, because they have done their frontage on Sunbridge just past their driveway. However, as part of this intersection improvement, it was up to that contractor to put in the access ramps, and that has been done within the last week or two. My point was that we are doing intersection improvements there and we are probably going to set the plans for future widening of Gregg at that intersection. I would think that we are not going to rip out the new traffic signal poles and everything. I think there is a lot of elevation up there and drainage. I think what Chuck is saying that we could still go ahead and put this section in, this being Gregg Street and this being Sunbridge, go ahead and put this in because this isn't going to change. One of the things that is probably confusing is that we have a state project and a City project both going. I think Chuck, you are talking about from here to wherever this access is? Subdivision Committee May 2, 2002 Page 45 Rutherford: Bunch: Rutherford: Bunch: Conklin: Hooker: Rutherford: Hooker: Shackelford: Bunch: They have currently constructed the sidewalk along the front to approximately right here. A new access ramp has been built right here as part of the intersection improvement so my request would be to go ahead and finish this sidewalk if you choose to accept the money for this but to go ahead and build the sidewalk up to this access ramp because this will not be changed. Curb and gutters are all built. Ok, the intersection work that the City is doing, is that on Sunbridge or Gregg or a combination of the two? A combination of the two. They have done some work along here, there is some curb and gutter and there is an access ramp here with the short piece of the sidewalk here and an access ramp here. A comment was made, I believe it was Tim that made the comment, that the City work could possibly show or indicate the extent of the State work? That was just a guess, do we know that? I think the problem is the elevation of this sidewalk. I can't imagine that not changing, can you Chuck? Well, if the sidewalk was built I would push for it to be built, we are trying to save money here for everyone, in other words, not have to take out the sidewalk, so we would really try to build the sidewalk from what Ron was talking about, to the right of way line to an elevation that hopefully would work with the future improvement. However, when there is drainage along here, along the back of this, which is really not shown I guess, where all this drains back to the creek so if you build a sidewalk up that elevation you kind of block that drainage. In other words, there would have to be some sort of swale built from where the water on this side could get over here or you build a sidewalk down the existing grade to where all this water could cross over it and get to this drainage and go. But if you do that and the new improvement is built then you have a sidewalk that is built to an undesirable elevation. You are talking probably 6' below the road from here to there. More than likely that area will be built up as part of the State Highway project. I can't imagine that it wouldn't be. This proposed drainage pipe, has that been put in? Is that your project or is that somebody else's project? Subdivision Committee May 2, 2002 Page 46 Hooker: Rutherford: Bunch: Hooker: Rutherford: Bunch: Motion: Marr: Bunch: Marr: Shackelford: Bunch: No, we decided not to do that. This is actually kind of an old plat. We ended up not having to do all of this. Another issue that we haven't talked about this morning, and Ron can weigh in on this probably, there is some pine trees along here and I'm not sure all of them are shown, we could meander through, some of them would be in between so we didn't take them out. However, if the road is improved at a later date some of those trees may go. Basically we are looking at bringing this sidewalk on down to here and then our motion, if we so decide, would have to reflect bringing this down to the existing access or the one that is going to end on part of the City project? Bring it down to there and then we would be talking basically the section from that access to the end of the creek or to the end of the property along Gregg. Just a question. The access is right here right? It is right on the corner. It is kind of a straight line because there is a new one here and a new one here. I guess we are looking for a motion. I will take public comment at this time. Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Subdivision Committee. I would like to move that we collect the sidewalk fee at $3.00 a sq.ft. from the existing access on the west side of the property from where the existing access currently is through the entire western sidewalk on the large scale development plan that was previously approved and that we build out the sidewalk from the existing access to the point that it connects to the part that is already done and that we hold that money until the improvement is made either by the State and apply it to the City's cost to the state, or require it to be built. Are you saying that we have to collect the money or can we use a letter of credit? Whatever the ordinance allows us to do. Point being, whatever that dollar amount is for that footage. My main thing is I want to make sure we hold it until it is built because I think it is a high priority road for a sidewalk as well as I think we need to build out down the rest of Sunbridge. I will second that motion. I will concur. That concludes our meeting. Are there any announcements? Meeting is adjourned.